Great Barrier Reef Coastal Zone Strategic Assessment 2014 ... · Great Barrier Reef coastal zone...

Great Great Barrier Reef coastal zone strategic assessment - Great Barrier Reef coastal zone strategic assessment

- i -

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone strategic assessment

Supplementary Report

July 2014

The Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning is responsible for driving the economic

development of Queensland.

© State of Queensland, July 2014. Published by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, 63

George Street, Brisbane Qld 4000, Australia

Licence: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY 3.0 Australia licence.

To view a copy of the licence, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en.

Enquiries about this licence or any copyright issues can be directed to the Senior Advisor,

Governance on telephone (07) 3224 2085 or in writing to PO Box 15009, City East Qld 4002.

Attribution: The State of Queensland, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

Images courtesy of Tourism Queensland.

The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of information. However,

copyright protects this publication. The State of Queensland has no objection to this material being reproduced, made

available online or electronically but only if it is recognised as the owner of the copyright and this material remains

unaltered.

The Queensland Government is committed to providing accessible services to Queenslanders of all cultural

and linguistic backgrounds. If you have difficulty understanding this publication and need a translator,

please call the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) on 131 450 and ask them to telephone

the Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning on (07) 3227 8548.

Disclaimer: While every care has been taken in preparing this publication, the State of Queensland accepts no

responsibility for decisions or actions taken as a result of any data, information, statement or advice, expressed or

implied, contained within. To the best of our knowledge, the content was correct at the time of publishing.

Any references to legislation are not an interpretation of the law. They are to be used as a guide only. The information in

this publication is general and does not take into account individual circumstances or situations. Where appropriate,

independent legal advice should be sought.

An electronic copy of this report is available on the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning’s

website at www.dsdip.qld.gov.au

http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone strategic assessment—Supplementary Report iii

Contents

Abbreviations ...................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction ................................................................................................ 3

1.1 Background ................................................................................................ 3

1.2 Purpose of the Supplementary Report ........................................................ 3

1.3 GBR coastal zone ....................................................................................... 4 1.3.2 Jurisdictional framework .................................................................... 6 1.3.3 Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement .............................. 6 1.3.4 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment ............................ 7

2. Strategic assessment process ................................................................... 9

2.1 Overview .................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Independent review .................................................................................. 11

2.3 Public consultation .................................................................................... 12 2.3.1 Consultation process ....................................................................... 13 2.3.2 Outcomes from consultation ............................................................ 13

2.4 Final reports.............................................................................................. 15 2.4.1 Methodology for finalising the reports .............................................. 15 2.4.2 Meeting the Terms of Reference ..................................................... 16

3. Queensland Government Program .......................................................... 19

3.1 Overview .................................................................................................. 19

3.2 How the Program protects MNES and OUV ............................................. 20

3.3 Benefits of the Program ............................................................................ 23 3.3.1 Enhanced protection of MNES and OUV in the GBR coastal zone 23 3.3.2 Enhanced management arrangements ............................................ 24 3.3.3 Social and economic benefits for the Queensland community ......... 25

3.4 Activities ................................................................................................... 27 3.4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 27 3.4.2 Urban development ......................................................................... 27 3.4.3 Industrial development..................................................................... 28 3.4.4 Port development ............................................................................ 28 3.4.5 Shipping .......................................................................................... 29 3.4.6 Tourism development ...................................................................... 29 3.4.7 Agriculture ....................................................................................... 30 3.4.8 Fishing and aquaculture .................................................................. 31

3.5 Impacts ..................................................................................................... 32 3.5.1 Potential impacts to MNES from activities........................................ 32

4. The Program and MNES .......................................................................... 44

4.1 World heritage .......................................................................................... 44 4.1.1 Protection of world heritage under the EPBC Act............................. 45 4.1.2 Protection of world heritage under the Program ............................... 46 4.1.3 Outcomes for world heritage under the Program ............................. 48 4.1.4 Case study 1—World heritage: Prohibition of mining activity ........... 49 4.1.5 Case study 2—World heritage, GBR Marine Park and Commonwealth marine areas: Resort development .................................. 51

4.2 National heritage ...................................................................................... 63 4.2.1 Protection of national heritage under the EPBC Act ......................... 63

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone strategic assessment—Supplementary Report iv

4.2.2 Protection of national heritage under the Program ........................... 64 4.2.3 Outcomes for national heritage under the Program ......................... 66

4.3 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park ................................................................ 66 4.3.2 Protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park under the EPBC Act ................................................................................................. 67 4.3.3 Protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park under the Program .................................................................................................... 70 4.3.4 Outcomes for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park under the Program .................................................................................................... 72

4.4 Commonwealth marine area ..................................................................... 72 4.4.1 Protection of a Commonwealth marine area under the EPBC Act 72 4.4.2 Outcomes for Commonwealth marine areas under the Program ..... 74

4.5 Listed threatened species ......................................................................... 75 4.5.1 Protection of listed threatened species under the EPBC Act ............ 76 4.5.2 Protection of Listed Threatened Species under the Program ........... 79 4.5.3 Outcomes for listed threatened species under the Program ............ 80 4.5.4 Case study 3—Listed threatened species: Residential development ............................................................................................. 81

4.6 Threatened Ecological Communities ........................................................ 89 4.6.1 Protection of Threatened Ecological Communities under the EPBC Act ................................................................................................. 90 4.6.2 Protection of Threatened Ecological Communities under the Program .................................................................................................... 91 4.6.3 Outcomes for Threatened Ecological Communities under the Program .................................................................................................... 92 4.6.4 Case study 4—Listed threatened ecological communities: Industrial development .............................................................................. 93

4.7 Listed migratory species ......................................................................... 101 4.7.1 Protection of migratory species under the EPBC Act ..................... 101 4.7.2 Protection of migratory species under the Program ....................... 102 4.7.3 Outcomes for listed migratory species under the Program ............. 104 4.7.4 Case study 5—Listed migratory species and ecological communities: Mining activity ................................................................... 105

4.8 Ramsar wetlands .................................................................................... 116 4.8.1 Protection of Ramsar Wetlands under the EPBC Act ..................... 116 4.8.2 Protection of Ramsar wetlands under the Program ........................ 118 4.8.3 Outcomes for Ramsar wetlands under the Program ...................... 121

5. Implementation of commitments ............................................................ 122

Appendix 1: Summary of public submissions and Queensland Government responses .................................................................................. 127

Appendix 2: Summary of independent review findings and Queensland Government responses .................................................................................. 164

Appendix 3: MNES ........................................................................................ 193

Appendix 4: Traditional Owners within the GBR coastal zone....................... 217

Appendix 5: Fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone ....................... 228

Appendix 6: Mahogany glider update ............................................................ 234

Appendix 7: Cassowary update ..................................................................... 239

References ..................................................................................................... 242

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone strategic assessment—Supplementary Report v

Figures Figure 1 Geographic scope of the GBR coastal zone strategic assessment ............. 5 Figure 2 GBR coastal zone strategic assessment process ..................................... 10 Figure 3 The ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy ........................................................ 20 Figure 4 Strategic outcomes of the Program ........................................................... 22 Figure 5 Mahogany glider habitat ......................................................................... 238

Tables Table 1 GBR coastal zone strategic assessment timetable ................................... 11 Table 2 GBR coastal zone strategic assessment reports and the TOR ................. 16 Table 3 Development activities that potentially impact MNES ................................ 34 Table 4 Assessment of potential impacts from development activities under

the Program .............................................................................................. 35 Table 5 Implementation of commitments ............................................................. 122

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone strategic assessment—Supplementary Report 1

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition

AES Areas of Ecological Significance

ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and

New Zealand

CAMBA China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

CSG Coal Seam Gas

COTS Crowth-of-Thorns Starfish

CSIRO The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

DAFF Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

DEHP Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

DNPRSR Queensland Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and

Racing

DNRM Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines

DOE Australian Department of the Environment

DPC Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet

DSDIP Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and

Planning

ECD Ecological Character Descriptions

ERA Environmentally Relevant Activity

EA Environmental Authority

ED Act Economic Development Act 2012 (Qld)

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMP Environmental Management Plans

EP Act Environment Protection Act 1994 (Qld)

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(Cwlth)

ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development

FC Forward Commitments

FHA Fish Habitat Area

GBR Great Barrier Reef

GBRMP Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

GBRWHA Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

IAS Initial Advice Statement

IDAS Integrated Development Assessment System

IESC Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and

Large Coal Mining Development

IGA Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement


Abbreviation Definition

IGAE Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment

JAMBA Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

LNG Liquid Natural Gas

MNES Matters of National Environmental Significance

MSES Matters of State Environmental Significance

MSQ Maritime Safety Queensland

NC Act Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld)

NRM Natural Resource Management

OUV Outstanding Universal Value

PDA Priority Development Area

PPDA Priority Port Development Areas

PVMP Property Vegetation Management Plan

QPWS Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service

REMP Receiving Environment Monitoring Program

ROKAMBA Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

SAA Strategic Assessment Agreement

SARA State Assessment and Referral Agency

SDA State Development Area

SDAP State Development Assessment Provisions

SDPWO Act State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld)

SP Act Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld)

SPP State Planning Policy

SPRAT Species Profile and Threats Database

SRA Strategic Rehabilitation Areas

TEC Threatened Ecological Communities

TI Act Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (Qld)

TOR Terms of Reference

TSS Total Suspended Solids

TUMRA Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreement

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

WHA World Heritage Area

WTMA Wet Tropics Management Authority

WTWHA Wet Tropics World Heritage Area


1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The Queensland Government entered into a Strategic Assessment Agreement (SAA)1 with

the Australian Government in 2012 under section 146 of the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) to undertake a strategic assessment of the

Great Barrier Reef (GBR) coastal zone.

The assessment responds to the June 2011 decision of the United Nations Education,

Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Committee (WHC) that

requested that the Australian Government undertake a strategic assessment of the Great

Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA).

‘…undertake a comprehensive strategic assessment of the entire property,

identifying planned and potential future development that could impact the

Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) to enable a long-term plan for sustainable

development that will protect the OUV of the property.’2

The Queensland Government’s strategic assessment (strategic assessment) forms part of a

comprehensive approach which includes a strategic assessment of the GBR region

undertaken by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (the GBRMPA).

Queensland’s assessment takes a ‘systems’ level approach and provides a broad landscape

scale assessment of the state’s legislation, policies, plans and programs (the Program). It

identifies and manages Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and the

OUV of the GBRWHA and Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA). It also identifies a

range of measures to better integrate and strengthen coastal and marine management in

conjunction with the GBRMPA.

1.2 Purpose of the Supplementary Report

Queensland’s strategic assessment reports have been developed to ensure that the

documentation the Queensland Government provides to the Australian Minister for the

Environment (the Minister) meet the Endorsement Criteria identified in the SAA and the

Terms of Reference (TOR)3.

The documents comprising the Queensland Government’s package of reports include the

revised Program Report, this Supplementary Strategic Assessment Report, the draft

Strategic Assessment Report, and an independently prepared report on the outcomes of the

public consultation.

1 http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/e166e5b7-bd7f-4bc5-9807-ba263e248632/files/s146-gbr-strategic-assessment-qld.pdf

2 http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4418/

3 http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/report/great-barrier-tor.pdf


The purpose of this Supplementary Report is to provide further information in response to

matters raised during public consultation and to address recommendations from the

independent review. It is also addresses feedback received from the Australian Department

of the Environment (DOE).

The Supplementary Report is not a standalone document and should be considered as part

of a package of reports including the revised Program Report and the draft Strategic

Assessment Report.

1.3 GBR coastal zone

The strategic assessment covers the GBR coastal zone adjacent to the GBR and includes

Queensland waters, islands and adjacent inland areas, 5 kilometres inland and 10 metres

Australian High Datum, whichever is further.

The GBR coastal zone incorporates parts of the GBRWHA, GBR Marine Park (GBRMP) and

the broader GBR catchment areas to the extent that water quality management

arrangements apply. Figure 1 presents the geographic scope of the strategic assessment.

The GBR coastal zone spans an area that is nearly 2 300 kilometres long. The

comprehensive strategic assessment, conducted by both the Australian and Queensland

governments, covers an area of 348 000 square kilometres, which is roughly the same size

as countries such as Japan or Italy.


Figure 1 Geographic scope of the GBR coastal zone strategic assessment


1.3.2 Jurisdictional framework

Under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cwlth) (GBRMP Act), the Australian

Government is responsible for the management of the GBRMP covering 344 400 square

kilometres.

Queensland is responsible for the management of the GBR Coast Marine Park, covering

63 000 square kilometres, as established under the Marine Parks Act 2004 (Qld) (MP Act).

This is contiguous with the GBRMP and covers the area between the low and high water

marks and includes many waters within the limits of the state.

There are approximately 980 islands and cays within the boundaries of the GBRMP. The

majority of the islands fall within the jurisdiction of Queensland and almost half of these are

national parks under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) (NC Act). There are around 70

islands that are owned by the Australian Government. The GBR Coast Marine Park and the

island national parks form part of the GBRWHA.

The Queensland and Australian governments both have jurisdictional responsibilities with

regard to fisheries which were established under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (Cth),

the Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld) and the EPBC Act.

The Queensland Government maintains responsibility for the GBR coastal zone in relation to

Natural Resource Management (NRM), land use planning and development assessment.

The Australian Government is responsible, under the EPBC Act, for regulating activities

having or likely to have a significant impact on MNES and OUV and maintains responsibility

for managing the environment within Australian Government land and waters.

1.3.3 Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement

Cooperative management of the GBR was first recognised in 1979 through the Emerald

Agreement between the Queensland and Australian governments. In June 2009, the Great

Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)4 was signed by the Prime Minister of

Australia and the Premier of Queensland, replacing the Emerald Agreement.

The IGA provides a contemporary arrangement for cooperation between Queensland and

Australian governments and recognises the jurisdictional framework governing the

GBRWHA and adjacent GBR coastal zone.

The objectives of the IGA are to:

provide for the long-term protection and conservation of the environment and

biodiversity of the GBR ecosystem, as encompassed by the GBRWHA, and its

transmission in good condition to future generations

allow ecologically sustainable use of the GBR ecosystem subject to the overarching

objective of long-term protection and conservation

provide for meeting Australia’s international responsibilities for the GBRWHA under

the World Heritage Convention.

4 http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/great-barrier-reef/protecting-reef/intergovernmental-agreement


The IGA reaffirms the Queensland and Australian governments’ commitments to:

prohibit activities for the exploration and recovery of minerals or petroleum, and any

drilling and mining within the GBRWHA, including for the purposes of depositing

materials

maintain the complementary nature of relevant Queensland and Australian

government management arrangements. These arrangements include marine park

legislation and associated regulations; zoning plans and plans of management;

planning and development arrangements; environmental assessment and permit

requirements; and management of fishing activities

continue a joint program of field management, with shared funding on a 50:50 basis,

for the GBRMP and Queensland marine and national parks within the GBRWHA

continue joint action to halt and reverse the decline in quality of water entering the

GBR

address significant threats to the health and biodiversity of the GBR ecosystem,

including pollution from the land and sea, the impacts of climate change, ecologically

unsustainable fishing activities and other resource extraction activities

ensure Indigenous traditional cultural practices continue to be recognised in the

conservation and management of the GBR.

The IGA outlines guiding principles that support the implementation of the agreement by

both governments and have been considered throughout the GBR coastal zone strategic

assessment process. Guiding principles include:

collaborative and cooperative approach is fundamental to the effective long-term

protection, conservation and management of the GBR

the precautionary principle will be applied including ecosystem-based management

and the principles of ecologically sustainable use

economic growth and the long-term health of the GBR ecosystem are interconnected,

and actions or changes in one can impact on the other and must be taken into

account

trends in the health, use of and risks to the GBR ecosystem will be regularly

monitored and reported to ensure decisions are soundly based.

1.3.4 Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment

On 1 May 1992, the Australian Government, Queensland Government and all other state

and territory governments signed the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment

(IGAE). This agreement facilitates, amongst other things, a cooperative national approach to

the environment and better environmental protection.

It identifies the principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) and requires the

effective integration of economic and environmental considerations in decision-making

processes in order to achieve ESD.


The principals of ESD include:

the precautionary principle

intergenerational equity

conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity

improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms.

The IGAE recognises that the Australian Government has responsibility for negotiating and

entering into international agreements concerning the environment, such as those for

Ramsar-listed wetlands, and will work with the state and territory governments regarding the

management of these areas.


2. Strategic assessment process

2.1 Overview

This strategic assessment has been undertaken in accordance with Part 10 of the

EBPC Act, the TOR and the SAA between the Australian and Queensland governments.

As shown in Figure 3, two draft reports for the GBR coastal zone strategic assessment were

initially prepared:

a draft Program Report, which described the Queensland Government’s coastal

management, planning and development process with specific regard to the

protection of MNES and OUV

a draft Strategic Assessment Report, which assessed the effectiveness of the

Program and presented the broad activities within the GBR coastal zone and

potential impacts on MNES and OUV.

The two draft reports identified and assessed how the Program manages impacts on MNES

and OUV in the GBR coastal zone and demonstrated how impacts are avoided, mitigated

and offset.

As required by the TOR, an independent review on the draft strategic assessment reports

was conducted prior to public consultation.

From 1 November 2013 to 31 January 2014, a joint public consultation process was

undertaken, in conjunction with the GBRMPA, seeking public comment on both the GBR

region and coastal zone draft reports.

This Supplementary Report and the revised Program Report take into account the matters

raised by the independent review and public comments made during the consultation period.

Together with the draft Strategic Assessment Report and a report on the public consultation,

these documents are provided to the Minister for consideration when determining whether to

endorse the Program. See Figure 2 and Table 1 for an outline of the GBR coastal zone

strategic assessment process.


Figure 2 GBR coastal zone strategic assessment process

Potential endorsement of the Program

Agreement to conduct a comprehensive strategic

assessment (GBR region and coastal zone)

Terms of Reference established for

the strategic assessment

Preparation of

draft Program Reports

Preparation of draft Strategic

Assessment Reports

Public comment on the draft Program Reports

Preparation of revised Program Report

and Supplementary Report

Implementation of the Program

(Long-Term Sustainability Plan)

Conducted jointly by DOE (formerly SEWPaC), the Queensland Government and GBRMPA to determine key issues, outcomes and constraints

Formal agreement signed by the Australian and Queensland governments in February 2012

Set the requirements of the strategic assessment (GBR region and coastal zone) Draft Terms of Reference issued for public comment in early 2012

Draft Program Report—coastal zone

(Queensland Government)

Draft Program Report—GBR region (GBRMPA)

Draft Strategic Assessment Report—GBR coastal zone

(Queensland Government)

Draft Strategic Assessment Report—GBR region (GBRMPA)

Public comment on the draft

Strategic Assessment Reports

13 week public consultation (92 days in total, minimum under EPBC Act is 28 days)

Jointly conducted by the Queensland Government and GBRMPA

Reports revised taking into

consideration the

independent review

and public comments

Independent review of GBR coastal zone draft reports (October 2013)

Implementation of commitments

in accordance with an endorsed

Program

Ongoing monitoring and

reporting on an endorsed

Program commitments

Queensland

Government

Scoping of the

assessment

Australian Minister for the

Environment to review the

Program for endorsement

Submission of reports


Table 1 GBR coastal zone strategic assessment timetable

Activity Timing

GBR strategic assessment agreement February 2012

Draft TOR released for public comment 18 February 2012 to 30 April 2012

Final TOR released August 2012

Preparation of the draft reports for the GBR coastal

zone strategic assessment

August 2012 to October 2013

Independent review report released on draft reports for

the GBR coastal zone strategic assessment

25 October 2013

GBR strategic assessment draft reports (Queensland

and GBRMPA) released for public comment

1 November 2013 to 31 January 2014

Report on the outcomes of public consultation finalised April 2014

Submission of Queensland’s package of GBR coastal

zone strategic assessment reports to the Minister

July 2014

2.2 Independent review

An independent review of the GBR coastal zone strategic assessment draft reports

was conducted in September to October 2013, just prior to their release for public

consultation. The independent review was commissioned by DOE (formerly known

as the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and

Communities), and the independent review report was released in late October 2013

on the DOE website5.

The purpose of the independent review was to provide a rigorous independent

assessment of the draft program and strategic assessment reports to ensure that

the documents accurately described and demonstrated the effectiveness of the

Program. It was conducted in response to public comments on the draft TOR calling

for an independent evaluation of the comprehensiveness of the strategic

assessment.

The independent review assessed the draft reports against the final TOR, the

structure and cohesiveness of the reports, the breadth and depth of the information,

its technical accuracy and the validity of the conclusions.

5 http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/great-barrier-reef-coastal-zone-strategic-assessment-independent-review-report


The findings of the independent review noted that the reports provided a good

presentation of a large body of information. The independent review report stated:

‘Strengths of the Strategic Assessment are its relatively concise format

suitable for a wide audience, use of spatial mapping tools, analysis of

terrestrial ecological values and detailed consideration of the linkages

between land-based activities and the environmental health of the reef

ecosystems.’

The independent review provided suggestions for improvement of the documents to

enhance the presentation and to increase the depth and coverage of the

assessment.

A number of recommendations in the independent review report were addressed in

the draft reports prior to their release for public consultation. However, the short

timeframe between the release of the independent review findings and the release

of the draft reports did not allow for all of the findings to be addressed.

Consequently, this Supplementary Report and the revised Program Report address

the outstanding recommendations from the independent review.

Appendix 2 of this report provides a table which lists the recommendations made by

the independent review and the Queensland Government’s response.

2.3 Public consultation

Public consultation on the draft strategic assessment reports prepared by both the

Queensland Government and the GBRMPA, was conducted from 1 November 2013

to 31 January 2014; a total of 13 weeks. The consultation period provided the public

and stakeholders the opportunity to review the draft reports and provide feedback on

their content and recommendations for the future management of the GBR.

A joint consultation process was undertaken by the Queensland Government and

the GBRMPA which reflects the collaborative management of the GBR and

overlapping nature of the strategic assessment reports. A range of methods were

used to maximise opportunities for the public to have their say.

Feedback received as part of the public consultation has informed the preparation of

this Supplementary Report and the revised Program Report. Responses received in

the public comment period were analysed in a number of ways to ensure the issues

raised were accurately identified.

An independent third party also analysed the responses to develop a public

consultation report which presents a summary of responses and an analysis of the

high level themes from consultation. The independent report on the public

consultation is presented to the Minister in conjunction with Queensland’s package

of final strategic assessment reports.

Appendix 1 of this report provides a detailed summary of the feedback received

during the public consultation and the Queensland Government response where

appropriate.


2.3.1 Consultation process

A range of consultation methods were implemented during the public consultation

process. The Queensland Government and the GBRMPA worked together during

the planning and operation of each method with the key aim of raising public and

stakeholder awareness of the comprehensive strategic assessment and to

encourage them to lodge submissions on the draft reports.

A dedicated website was created to support the public consultation containing

copies of the draft reports, an online survey to capture feedback, and other materials

providing information about the comprehensive strategic assessment.

Public notices advertising the public consultation were placed in national, state and

local publications, including The Australian, The Courier Mail, Australian Financial

Review, The Cairns Post, Townsville Bulletin, Rockhampton Morning Bulletin and

Gladstone Observer. Electronic advertising was placed on The Courier Mail and

News.com.au websites. The public consultation was also promoted through various

Australian and Queensland government communication activities including

websites, electronic newsletters and social media forums (Facebook and Twitter).

Community information sessions and regional briefings were conducted in

November and December 2013 at Airlie Beach, Townsville, Cairns, Mackay,

Rockhampton and Gladstone. In addition, a number of stakeholder engagement

workshops and briefings were held by the Queensland Government and the

GBRMPA, including an Indigenous stakeholder workshop and the GBRMPA

Advisory Committee briefings. Presentations were also provided to the Queensland

Resources Council, GBR Foundation Board, Australian Committee for International

Union for Conservation of Nature, and the Reef Plan Partnership Committee.

Hard copies of the draft strategic assessment reports were displayed in 30 libraries

across Queensland, six Queensland Government offices and five GBRMPA offices.

Copies of the reports were also provided on CD to community members and

stakeholders upon request.

2.3.2 Outcomes from consultation

The public consultation generated a large number of submissions relating to the

management of the GBR and the draft GBR coastal zone strategic assessment

reports. Being a joint consultation with the GBRMPA, comments were also received

on matters relevant to the draft GBR region strategic assessment reports prepared

by the GBRMPA. In addition, some comments received extended to matters outside

the scope of the comprehensive strategic assessment.

In relation to the feedback received on the Queensland Government’s draft strategic

assessment reports, a detailed analysis has been conducted with discussion of

particular themes and comments and the Queensland Government response. This

is located at Appendix 1 of this Supplementary Report.


Generally, the themes emerging from the consultation included comments about:

the management of the GBR and the effectiveness of particular pieces of

legislation, regulation, programs and initiatives

ensuring the reef and its biodiversity is maintained and protected for future

generations

port and coastal development and their potential impact on the reef

environment, particularly in relation to dredging

agricultural and mining impacts on water quality of the GBR

cumulative impacts and how they can be better addressed in project

assessment and approval processes in the GBR

environmental offsets policies and how they should be implemented in the

GBR

fisheries management in the GBRMP

recognition of traditional owner cultural heritage and their contribution to the

management of the reef.

The feedback and comments received have been analysed and have assisted in

informing the preparation and finalisation of this Supplementary Report and the

revised Program Report.

Consultation statistics

Total number of submissions received: 6 616

Of the total submissions:

6 009 petition submissions across 5 campaigns

362 online survey submissions

240 email submissions

3 postal submissions

1 hand-delivered submission

Total number of website visits during the consultation period: 6 452 visitors

Of the total visits:

92 per cent were from Australia

Of the Australian visitors, the majority were from Queensland (63 per cent), New South

Wales (16 per cent) and Victoria (10 per cent)

People from 74 other countries visited the website, with the majority from the United

States of America, Great Britain, Canada and Germany


2.4 Final reports

2.4.1 Methodology for finalising the reports

Queensland’s final strategic assessment reports, comprising of the revised Program

Report, this Supplementary Strategic Assessment Report, draft Strategic

Assessment Report, and an independently prepared report on the outcomes of the

public consultation, have been developed in accordance with the SAA, TOR and

Endorsement Criteria and are presented for the Minister’s consideration. This

includes responding to public comments and the issues and concerns they raised,

addressing recommendations in the independent review, and feedback received

from DOE on the draft reports.

There were a number of steps taken in developing the content for the final reports.

Firstly, the independent review report was examined and each recommendation

considered. Some recommendations had been addressed prior to the draft reports

being subject to public consultation. However, the review did suggest that the

documents needed more detail and analysis on certain topics and greater clarity on

how the Program would work.

Public comments were also analysed by both an independent third party and the

Queensland Government to identify the key issues raised. For each of the key

issues a response strategy was determined and in some cases this meant collating

and developing additional information to respond to the concerns raised (e.g.

fisheries management). In other cases, it meant examining and rewriting text in

either this Supplementary Report or the revised Program Report to ensure the

information presented was clear and easily understood. Another type of response

was to amend or add a commitment to ensure the issue was addressed and the

Program was robust and comprehensive.

The information provided in the draft Strategic Assessment Report was also

reviewed and some updates have been provided in this Supplementary Report to

clarify and better explain the material (e.g. the Mahogany Glider update in

Appendix 6).

This report contains additional, new or amended information which should be

considered together with the draft Strategic Assessment Report and the revised

Program Report as the final package of reports for the strategic assessment of the

GBR coastal zone. No changes have been made to the draft Strategic Assessment

Report. Where appropriate, changes identified through the public consultation

process have been incorporated into this Supplementary Report.

The Program Report was revised to strengthen management arrangements and to

provide greater clarity in describing the Program.


2.4.2 Meeting the Terms of Reference

Table 2 establishes how Queensland’s package of strategic assessment reports

address the TOR as set out in the SAA. It identifies the chapters and sections

contained in each document relating to specific TOR to demonstrate the reports’

compliance with the TOR.

Table 2 GBR coastal zone strategic assessment reports and the TOR

GBR strategic assessment coastal

zone Terms of Reference

Program

Report

Supplementary

Report

Draft

Strategic

Assessment

Report

1. Purpose and description of the Program

The Strategic Assessment Report must

include an overview of the Program

including its purpose and the area in

which it will be implemented. For the

purposes of the strategic assessment,

the life of the Program is 25 years.

Section 1.1

Section 1.3.

Chapter 2

Section 1.3

Chapter 3

Chapter 6

The Program Report will include:

1. the purpose of the Program Section 1.1

Section 2.3

Section 3.1

Section 3.2

Section 3.3

Section 1.3 Chapter 6

2. a description of the area to

which the strategic assessment

applies (the strategic

assessment area)

Section 1.3 Section 1.3 Section 1.4

3. the component legislation,

plans, policies and other

material that make up the

Program including program

commitments

Chapter 3 Section 3.2

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6 Chapter 7 Section 9.5

4. the likely activities that will occur

under the Program

Section 1.4 Section 3.4 Section 5.2

5. the state and regional context

(environmental, social, and

economic) in which the Program

operates, including activities

outside the strategic

assessment area that may

influence the Program

Section 1.5

Section 1.7

Section 1.3

Section 3.4

Chapter 2 Chapter 8

6. other relevant national, state or

regional planning or

management frameworks that

affect the Program

Section 2.1

Section 2.2

Section 3.4

Chapter 4


7. a description of how the

Program identifies, protects and

manages matters of national

environment significance

(MNES)

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 4 Chapter 7


GBR strategic assessment coastal

zone Terms of Reference

Program

Report

Supplementary

Report

Draft

Strategic

Assessment

Report

8. identification of how long the

Program will be in effect and the

process for review of the

Program, including adaptive

management

Section 1.1 Section 3.6.2 Chapter 5 Chapter 8

Section 3.2 Section 6.1 Chapter 9

9. identification of the relevant

authorities responsible for the

implementation of the Program.

Chapter 3

Chapter 7

Section 3.4

Chapter 4

Section 9.4 Section 9.5

2. Matters of National Environmental Significance

2.1 Identification of MNES

including OUV

Chapter 3

Chapter 4 Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

2.2 Identification and analysis of

the potential impacts

Chapter 3


Chapter 5

Chapter 9

2.3 Measures to avoid, mitigate

and offset impacts

Chapter 3

Chapter 4 Chapter 5

Chapter 7

Chapter 9

2.4 Demonstration of the Program Chapter 3

Chapter 4 Chapter 7

Appendices –

Demonstration

case studies 1

to 8

2.5 Recommendations for changes

to the Program

Chapter 3 Chapter 7

Chapter 4 Chapter 8

Chapter 10

3. Promotion Ecologically Sustainable

Development

Chapter 2 Section 3.1 Section 9.3

4. Adaptive management: addressing

uncertainty and managing risk

Chapter 2

Section 3.6.2

Chapter 4 Chapter 9

5. Auditing and reporting Section 3.6.2

Section 3.7.3

Section 3.7.4

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

6. Review, modification or

abandonment

Chapter 8 Chapter 9

7. Endorsement Criteria Section 1.1.2

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

8. Independent review* Section 2.2

Section 2.4

Appendix 2

Section 3.10.5

9. Information sources References References Section 3.10.2

References

Appendices

10. Engagement^ Section 2.3

Section 2.4

Appendix 1

Section 3.10


* Queensland’s draft reports were subject to independent review. The revised Program Report and Supplementary Report have been prepared in consideration of the feedback and comments received. The specific recommendations from the independent review and the Queensland Government response are contained in Appendix 2 of this Supplementary Report. The independent review report is available at http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/797b46e9-af09-48ab-835b-2a5350f89ba1/files/gbr-strat-assessment-ind-review-report.pdf. ^Queensland’s draft strategic assessment reports were subject to public consultation. The revised Program Report and Supplementary Report have been prepared in consideration of the feedback and comments received. A summary of public comments and specific Queensland Government responses are contained in Appendix 1 of this Supplementary Report. An independently prepared report on the outcomes of the public consultation is also included as part of Queensland’s final strategic assessment reports package.

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/797b46e9-af09-48ab-835b-2a5350f89ba1/files/gbr-strat-assessment-ind-review-report.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/797b46e9-af09-48ab-835b-2a5350f89ba1/files/gbr-strat-assessment-ind-review-report.pdf


3. Queensland Government Program

3.1 Overview

The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring that development in the

GBR coastal zone occurs in a sustainable manner and that the unacceptable

impacts on MNES and OUV do not occur.

The Queensland Government draws on legislation, policies, plans and programs to

manage the impacts of activities in the GBR coastal zone. In particular, the

Queensland Government’s planning and development processes provide the

context for management actions, government plans and policies and longer-term,

action-oriented programs for managing the GBR coastal zone.

The ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy is used to ensure ESD is embedded in the

Program and manages the impacts of current and future development. Figure 2

outlines the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy.

Additional steps including adaptive management strategies are critical to provide

positive long-term outcomes for MNES and OUV in both current and future

developments within the GBR coastal zone. Enhancing MNES includes

rehabilitating degraded ecosystems or restoring cleared ecosystems. Queensland

contributes significant resources to enhancing MNES which have been impacted by

historical land use practices.

The Program seeks to facilitate ESD to balance economic wellbeing and

environmental considerations. As outlined in the draft strategic assessment reports,

the Program is designed to identify, protect and manage environmental values

across the entire state. However, specific consideration is afforded to the GBR

coastal zone given its unique values and its world heritage status.

The principles of ESD, outlined in the IGAE and section 3A of the EPBC Act, are

adopted within Queensland Government decision-making.

Principles of Ecologically Sustainable Development

Decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term

economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations.

If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific

certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent

environmental degradation.

The principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure

that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced

for the benefit of future generations.

The conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental

consideration in decision-making.

Improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.


Figure 3 The ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy

3.2 How the Program protects MNES and OUV

The Program describes the planning and development context in which approval

recommendations are made. It is supported by a range of management tools

designed to achieve the Program objectives including legislation, policies, plans and

programs, both existing and new, and a range of commitments.

The Program for the GBR coastal zone comprises:

a series of commitments designed to enhance environmental outcomes, in

particular for the protection and management of MNES and OUV over the

next 25 years

a set of management and development assessment tools that support

continued improvement in the delivery of legislation, policies, plans and

programs governing development activities.

Mitigate

Offset

Significant impacts on MNES and OUV should be AVOIDED

Avoid

If after all reasonable avoidance measures have been put in place, MITIGATION of all residual impacts on MNES and OUV must be

undertaken

Once all reasonable avoidance and mitigation measures have been applied, any residual impacts on MNES will be OFFSET. Offsets will

only be considered if the proposed action is acceptable.


The continued development, refinement and enhancement of existing programs and

policies relevant to the GBR coastal zone attempt to build on its successes, remove

weaknesses and fill any identified gaps to deliver improved outcomes which are

measurable, transparent and sustainable over the 25-year life of the Program.

The Program protects and manages environmental values across Queensland, and

in particular in the GBR coastal zone. It provides for the consideration of MNES and

OUV in the GBR coastal zone.

The Program delivers five strategic outcomes to ensure the identification,

protection and enhancement of MNES and OUV in the GBR coastal zone:

improved planning for urban areas, industry and ports

rigorous EIS assessment processes for major projects

better guidance for development activities

enhanced management, recovery and monitoring programs

strong joint management initiatives.

Figure 4 details the strategic outcomes of the Program.


Figure 4 Strategic outcomes of the Program

Explicit consideration of MNES

Cumulative impact assessment

Better guidance for development activities

Improved coordination across jurisdictions

Reef 2050 – Long Term Sustainability Plan

Outcomes-based framework

Integrated monitoring framework

Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnerships

North East Shipping Management Plan

Reef Water Quality Protection Plan

Strong joint management initiatives

Fisheries management

State of the Environment reporting and Outlook reports

Species prioritisation framework

Back on Track

Natural Resource Management Investment Program

Wet Tropics Conservation Strategy

Ramsar wetlands

Queensland Wetlands Program

Indigenous management programs

Enhanced management, recovery and monitoring programs

Improved upfront planning

More efficient and concentrated use of major long-established ports

Improved planning for urban areas, industry and ports

EIS assessment processes

Queensland Ports Strategy

Rigorous EIS assessment processes for major projects


3.3 Benefits of the Program

The benefits of the GBR coastal zone strategic assessment include outcomes that

will enable:

enhanced protection of MNES and OUV as they relate to the GBR coastal

zone

enhanced management of the GBRWHA and adjacent coastal zone

social and economic benefits for the Queensland and Australian

communities.

3.3.1 Enhanced protection of MNES and OUV in the GBR coastal zone

Through the implementation of the Program, the Queensland Government will

protect MNES and OUV in the GBR coastal zone. As part of the Program, the

Queensland Government applies robust EIS assessment processes to ensure that

any development in the GBR coastal zone occurs in a sustainable manner and that

unacceptable impacts on MNES do not occur.

The principles of ESD, outlined in the IGAE and Section 3A of the EPBC Act, are

adopted within the Queensland Government’s decision making relating to

environmental management. Through the IGAE Queensland agrees to the:

‘…the adoption of sound environmental practices and procedures, as a basis

for ecologically sustainable development, will benefit both the Australian

people and environment, and the international community and environment.

This requires the effective integration of economic and environmental

considerations in decision-making processes, in order to improve community

well-being and benefit future generations’.6

Essentially, the overarching policy intent of the Program is to achieve ESD in the

GBR coastal zone in accordance with the IGAE by integrating environmental

considerations into decision-making processes at all levels.

The Queensland Government commits to undertaking further actions toward the

protection of MNES and OUV, such as:

extending its protected areas over time through the use of environmental

offsets to ensure protection of a range of ecosystems and species and to

improve protection for MNES in the GBR coastal zone

working with the Australian Government, including the GBRMPA, to develop

MNES and cumulative impact assessment guidelines

developing an integrated monitoring program with the Australian Government

to monitor and improve information about the condition and trend of MNES in

the GBR coastal zone

incorporating MNES condition and trend reporting into Queensland’s State of

the Environment Reporting

6 http://www.environment.gov.au/node/13008


implementation of the Queensland Ports Strategy (QPS) which concentrates

port development to Priority Port Development Areas (PPDAs) for the next

10 years

the requirement that PPDAs prepare master plans that will address potential

environmental impacts of proposed port development and port activities,

including consideration of potential marine and cumulative impacts, MNES

and OUV

the prohibition of dredging within and adjoining the GBRWHA for the

development of new, or the expansion of existing port facilities outside

PPDAs, for the next 10 years.

3.3.2 Enhanced management arrangements

The IGA provides a framework for the Australian and Queensland governments to

work together to manage and protect the GBR. The GBR Ministerial Forum was

established in July 2011 under the IGA with representation from both governments,

to facilitate and oversee the implementation and achievement of the objectives of

the IGA.

Consequently, the Queensland Government is committed to supporting the

Australian Government in fulfilling its obligations in relation to the status of the GBR

as a WHA. This includes working in accordance with the Operational Guidelines for

the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention and providing the Australian

Government with any information it requires to fulfil its reporting and review

requirements to the WHC.

Additionally, the Queensland Government is working with the Australian

Government to develop and implement the Reef 2050 Plan which is an overarching

framework to guide the protection and management of the GBR. The plan

comprises of two components:

Reef 2050 – Long Term Sustainability Plan (LTSP)

Reef Trust.

The LTSP will draw on the marine and coastal components of the comprehensive

strategic assessment and provide an overarching framework to guide the protection

and management of the GBRWHA from 2015 to 2050.

The LTSP will build on the successful Reef Water Quality Protection Plan and the

strong foundation of management already in place. It will target identified areas of

action and seek to address gaps for the future management of the GBR.

The Reef Trust will combine both Australian Government and private funds to focus

on improving coastal habitat and water quality throughout the GBR and adjacent

catchments. The Australian Government is committing an initial contribution of

$40 million to the Reef Trust to address key treats to the reef. Reef Trust funding will

be provided to farmers and land managers to implement techniques to reduce run-

off to the GBR catchment. Additional actions are also planned to control Crown-of-

Thorns Starfish (COTS) outbreaks and reduce the incidence of new outbreaks

through partnerships between managing agencies and marine tourism operators.


A National Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan is also being established under the

Reef 2050 Plan. It will provide greater protection from poaching activity, illegal

hunting and marine debris to dugong and turtle populations. The Australian

Government Reef Programme (formerly Reef Rescue) will be delivered as a

component of the National Landcare Programme and will build on the success of the

first phase of Reef Rescue.

A number of commitments and measures to strengthen the Program have also been

identified to enhance the management arrangements between the Australian and

Queensland governments for the GBRWHA and adjacent GBR coastal zone. These

include:

joint efforts to improve mapping for the identification of MNES

a consistent national listing of threatened species

shared outcomes and targets for the protection of the GBR and OUV

integrated monitoring, compliance and reporting programs to obtain

improved information about MNES and their condition and trend

joint development of guidelines for project proponents and decision makers

in relation to the assessment of cumulative impacts

joint development of an outcomes-based framework for the GBRWHA.

3.3.3 Social and economic benefits for the Queensland community

The GBRWHA covers an area of 348 000 square kilometres which is approximately

equivalent to the size of Italy or Japan. More than one million people reside in

communities throughout the GBR coastal zone and 60 per cent of the population is

concentrated in the regional centres of Cairns, Mackay, Rockhampton and

Townsville. The GBRWHA and key areas within the GBR coastal zone support a

diverse range of social, cultural and economic activities, environmental biodiversity,

heritage values and Indigenous cultural heritage values.

The GBR coastal zone makes a significance contribution toward Queensland’s

economic growth and supports a range of industry sectors, some of which are

dependent on the environmental characteristics of the GBRWHA. Through tourism,

recreation, commercial fishing and scientific research, the WHA contributes around

$5.4 billion every year and supports around 67 000 jobs. Approximately two million

people visit the reef each year from all over the world, and around 80 per cent of

these tourism activities occur within only seven per cent of the GBR region.7

Other industries use or are located in the GBR region such as shipping, ports,

aquaculture and defence, and coastal communities adjacent to the reef include

extensive agricultural industries. Significant elements of the resources industry are

located inland of the GBR coastal zone and rely on ports within the GBR coast to

link with international markets.

7 http://www.reeffacts.qld.gov.au/tourism/


The first IGA established between the Queensland and Australian governments in

1979, known as the Emerald Agreement, set out how the two governments would

work together to jointly manage the GBR. At the time, it was agreed that it was the

policies of the respective governments to prohibit mining and drilling within the

GBRWHA.

Very limited mining occurs in the GBR coastal zone adjacent to the GBR.

Operations that do occur are limited to silica mining at Cape Flattery and magnetite

mining north of Rockhampton. Small silica sand reserves near Mourilyan Harbour

are being investigated for development. There are no operating coal mines in or in

close proximity to the GBR coastal zone and no major coal reserves.

The GBR coastal zone encompasses a number of cultural sites that occur within the

GBR’s land and sea country important to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

peoples in the GBR region. For many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

there is a profound connection between natural and cultural values, and their land

and sea estates. The Queensland Government acknowledges this value and the

importance the GBR coastal zone has to Indigenous communities from both a

heritage and contemporary use perspective.

Balancing the sustainable growth of the region and the protection of the environment

is an important objective for the Queensland Government and is sought through a

system that effectively governs economic and social development in the GBR

coastal zone. This is achieved through appropriate planning and EIS processes that

manage activities and protect the unique environmental values of the GBR.


3.4 Activities

3.4.1 Introduction

The following description of urban, industrial, port and aquaculture development

activities is intended to provide an indication of the range of activities covered by the

Program seeking endorsement. The scale of these activities would have to be such

that a significant impact on MNES is likely in order to require assessment through the

EIS process.

3.4.2 Urban development

Urban development refers to the construction or expansion of a town or city. This

includes the construction of residential and non-residential buildings (e.g. shops and

industrial facilities) and associated infrastructure such as roads and rail lines, water

supply and sewerage pipelines, telecommunications, electricity supply and other

service infrastructure. Urban development may also require the construction of water

infrastructure such as dams or weirs and wastewater treatment plants to service urban

development areas. Urban development also includes the construction of recreational

areas such as parks and public swimming pools. The scale of development can range

from expanding a suburb to a construction of a new urban centre with large residential,

commercial and industrial areas.

The activities associated with urban development is dependent on the type of

development, the location and the scale of the area being developed, and the proposed

future use of the site. Typical activities associated with construction and expansion of

urban infrastructure include site preparation works which may involve removal of

existing vegetation, grubbing (removal of organic matter from the soil), stripping

topsoils, removal of land forms such as undulations in the landscape and filling the site

with material to level and stabilise the site. For sites near waterways, bulk earthworks

may also be undertaken to change the nature of the site such as raising the height to

provide clearance for overland flows during flooding events. Other site preparation

works include laying pipelines for water, stormwater, sewage and gas.

Construction works are typically undertaken using a range of construction plant and

machinery including heavy vehicles and other civil works equipment.

Ongoing activities in urban centres include the consumption of water and energy and

the generation of waste (e.g. sewerage and domestic wastes) and air emissions. Other

ongoing activities include movement of people and the use of vehicles and other

modes of transport.

The expansion of urban areas may result in an increase in the number of domestic

animals and introduced plant species. The increase in impervious surfaces (e.g. roads,

car parks and buildings) associated with the construction of urban structures can also

result in the increased volumes of surface water runoff during heavy rainfall events.


3.4.3 Industrial development

Industrial development involves a similar process undertaken for the construction and

expansion of urban development in terms of site preparation and construction works

with similar ongoing uses.

The nature of the development and the activities generally include waste generation;

handling, storage and use of potentially toxic materials; stockpiling and processing of

materials; generation of sometimes large amounts of noise, light and other emissions;

and construction of large infrastructure development for energy, water, transport and

sewerage.

Commodity processing typically involves the handling and/or conversion of raw bulk

material into more convenient, ready-to-use end products or ready-to-export end

products. In the context of this report, commodity processing encompasses both the

act of processing and the associated storage of materials at different stages.

3.4.4 Port development

Ports are development areas on waterways with facilities for loading and unloading

cargo on ships and other marine vessels. The activities associated with port

developments include:

construction of terminals, loading and un-loading facilities

storage and waste facilities, cargo holding facilities and material stockpiles

vessel loading and unloading

vessel anchoring

shipping

land reclamation

dredging and dredge material relocation.

Construction is the process of building new port facilities or extending, maintaining or

improving existing facilities. Construction-related port activities may include clearing,

levelling, stockpiling, earthworks, building of structures and pile driving.

Activities undertaken while a vessel is at berth generally are described as vessel

loading and unloading. This can include the physical process of loading and unloading

commodities, cleaning, repairs, and the transfer of waste, fuel and supplies. Vessels

may anchor for different time periods and purposes. Common activities undertaken

when anchored include refuelling, transfer of supplies, vessel cleaning and other

operational activities, general provisioning and scheduled on-board maintenance.

Land reclamation refers to the conversion of existing substrate by depositing materials

to create land in a low-lying coastal area or water body such as a lake, estuary or

ocean. In a port area, this process is often used to enable industrial expansion and it

can also be used to create new land for residential, recreational or environmental

purposes. The process of land reclamation is usually completed through the use of

bund walls to create an enclosed area, which is then filled with substrate such as

dredge material. Land reclamation may also present an alternative to sea relocation of

dredged material, when the material displays the correct engineering properties for

such purpose.


Dredging and spoil relocation

Dredging is the process of removing material from the sea bed in order to increase

water depth, ensuring the safety of vessels and efficiency of port operations. Dredging

can involve dredging of new areas, deepening or widening of existing channels and

berth pockets for larger vessels to access, and ongoing dredging to facilitating the safe

and efficient movement of vessels.

Dredge material can be relocated either onshore or in the ocean and is generally

directed to areas of least environmental impact. The amounts and type of material

removed, and the intensity and duration of the dredging campaign, varies considerably

with the natural environment and port requirements.

Sea disposal of dredged material refers to the relocation of dredge material in the

marine environment. The 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine

Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter 1972 (the London Protocol) prohibits

dumping of wastes at sea, except for possibly acceptable wastes included in an annex

to the treaty. Australia’s obligations under the London Protocol are implemented

through the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (the Sea Dumping Act).

Under the Sea Dumping Act, dredged material that contains contaminants of certain

types (such as heavy metals) or above specified proportions, must be disposed of on

land.

3.4.5 Shipping

Shipping of goods both domestically and internationally is of great importance to

regional and national economies. Many remote communities rely on ship transport for

their goods. In the recent past, growth in demand for commodities such as coal has

required an increase in shipping activity causing some concern in the community.

Shipping activities includes the movement of vessels within, around and between ports

in order to facilitate the import and export of commodities. This can include tugboats

and ancillary vessels and ocean-going ships.

3.4.6 Tourism development

For the purpose of this report, tourism developments activities are those associated

with medium to large scale resort development and associated activities in the GBR

coastal zone. Tourism development is typically located in coastal areas and islands

and can range from small scale holiday houses to large scale integrated resorts.

Tourism development involves a similar process undertaken for the construction and

expansion of urban development in terms of site preparation and construction works

with similar ongoing uses.

In coastal areas and on islands, tourism development may also involve the construction

of marinas or marine infrastructure (e.g. revetment walls, pontoons, boat ramps, jetties

and moorings) which may involve the clearing of coastal habitat or marine plants,

dredging activities and land reclamation. Ongoing activities associated with marine

components include the movement of commercial and recreational vessels.

Tourism development may also include infrastructure such as golf courses and

swimming pools which require the use of chemicals, including fertilisers, to maintain.


Golf courses are also maintained through the use of large volumes of water distributed

through irrigation systems. The water used for irrigation purposes particularly on

islands is often treated wastewater.

Ongoing recreational activities related to tourism developments on land include

walking/hiking, camping, horse riding, mountain biking and the use of off-road vehicles

and marine activities include recreational boating and fishing, snorkelling and

swimming.

3.4.7 Agriculture

The agricultural sector is an important contributor to Queensland’s economy.

Queensland's agricultural industries are made up of:

plant industries, including field crops, horticulture and forestry

animal industries, including livestock and livestock products.

Queensland has the largest area of agricultural land of any Australian state and the

highest proportion of land area in Australia dedicated to agriculture.

Agriculture is the predominant land use in Queensland. Approximately 85 per cent of

the State is used for grazing and 2 per cent of the land area is used for cropping. Other

agricultural industries (excluding forestry) each occupy less than 1 per cent of the

State.

Queensland has in excess of 52 million hectares of native forest, comprising

approximately one third of Australia’s total native forests and the largest forested area

of any Australian state or territory. Commercial native timber supply is sourced from

approximately 20–40 per cent of this area, on both state-owned and private land,

predominately in coastal and southern inland areas of Queensland. Native forests that

produce commercial timber are generally also used for grazing and are managed as

silvopastoral systems—production systems that combine forestry and grazing in a

mutually beneficial way.

The activities associated with horticulture vary based on the type of agriculture, the

location and the scale of the area being developed.

Agricultural activities have driven significant landscape change leading to both direct

and indirect environmental impacts. The two primary impacts are the contribution

agricultural land management practices make to poor catchment water quality and the

impact of stock grazing in natural areas on biodiversity and environmental values.

Other impacts include changes to fire regimes to benefit agricultural activities rather

than ecosystems, the introduction of exotic grasses favoured by stock and limited

management effort directed at environmental pests.

The 2013 Scientific Consensus Statement, prepared by over 40 leading scientists,

identified that the decline in water quality from catchment runoff is the major cause of

the current poor state of many of the key GBR ecosystems and that the three major

risks are nitrogen, fine sediment and pesticide discharge. It also identified that the

major source of the key pollutants is broadscale agriculture and that other sources

such as urban, ports and shipping are relatively small but may be locally and over short

time periods highly significant. In terms of risks, the consensus statement noted that

overall, nitrogen poses the greatest risk to coral because of its influence on COTS

outbreaks, while sediment poses the greatest risk to seagrass.


3.4.8 Fishing and aquaculture

Fishing

Fishing is a major commercial and recreational activity in the GBR coastal zone and

marine park. Both recreational and commercial fishing contribute to the social and

economic well-being of regions adjacent to the GBR.

Queensland has an extremely diverse range of fisheries that are targeted by both

recreational and commercial fishers. Queensland produces approximately 50 per cent

of Australia’s prawns, crabs and scallops and 25 per cent of Australia’s finfish

(excluding tuna and salmonoids).

Fishing practices have varying levels of impact – trawling has high levels of by-catch

which can include listed threatened species and can physically impact benthic habitats.

Nets can potentially capture and injure or kill marine mammals and listed threatened

species. Line fishing also produces by-catch and can capture listed species like turtles

and sharks. Anchoring can cause damage to benthic communities and waste from

boats can be an entanglement or ingestion risk for birds, fish and mammals.

Fisheries can also be impacted on by other development, such as when road, rail or

water infrastructure creates barriers or reduces connectivity of aquatic environments.

These barriers can impede fish species from moving between marine environments to

upstream, freshwater environments to spawn or mature which can impact population

growth rates.

Fishing also has impacts on the marine environment. These risks are managed using a

range of regulations, legislation, compliance and education by the Queensland

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF).

The impacts of fishing include the direct take or mortality of fish, which can lead to

overfishing of a particular stock and/or disruption of the food chain, indirect mortality of

non-target species, and physical impacts on marine environments. Changes in the

abundance of fish species at all levels of the food chain can have an influence on food

webs and ecosystem balance.

Aquaculture

Land-based aquaculture occurs in the GBR catchment principally for prawns,

barramundi, red claw and freshwater fish. Activities related to aquaculture include

construction of the ponds and ongoing use activities.

Clearing may be required on coastal lands or land adjacent to the estuarine parts of

river systems to purpose-build earthen ponds. Saline water is pumped onto the farm

where it is then gravity fed to a series of production ponds. Water drains from the

ponds and enters a treatment pond whereby solid wastes settle out before water is

discharged back to the sea. In some cases, some of this water is recirculated back

through the farm system.

Systems used for the production of freshwater species are normally limited to

freshwater ponds, tank, raceway and aquarium systems. In Queensland, there are six

tank farms in operation that use a recirculation system to reduce the reliance on large

quantities of water to maintain the health of cultured fish.


3.5 Impacts

3.5.1 Potential impacts to MNES from activities

The above description of activities provides an indication of the range of activities

covered by the Program. While the following section describes the potential impacts of

these activities, it is important to note that impacts will be avoided, mitigated or offset

through the application of the Program.

The potential environmental impacts of activities are considered within a project’s

economic and social context and involves taking into consideration the principles of

ESD to support a balance between development and environmental conservation.

While the EIS process ensures that potential impacts from development activities are

minimised, the Queensland Government supports a range of initiatives that seek to

improve the environment including MNES. The initiatives are discussed in Chapter 4 of

this report.

The specific nature and extent of impacts that may arise from the above activities on

MNES are broad and wide-ranging. For instance, activities may have the potential to:

reduce available land for population settlement, and for certain species or

ecological communities

fragment an existing population or ecological community

adversely affect critical habitat for the survival of a species or ecological

community potentially disrupting the lifecycle of species or ecological

communities

modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat

or the environment, introduce disease, or interfere with the recovery of a

species or ecological community

modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, soil)

necessary for an ecological community’s survival, including reduction of

groundwater levels, or substantial alternative of surface water drainage courses

cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of an

ecological community, including a decline or loss of functionally important

species, e.g. through flora or fauna harvesting

cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an

ecological community, including but not limited to assisting invasive species that

are harmful to the listed ecological community to become established

cause regular mobilisation of chemicals or pollutants into an ecological

community which kill or inhibit the growth of species in the ecological

community

cause a change in a hydrological regime or an environmental feature leading to

a change in water quality or an adverse impact on ecosystem functioning or

integrity

impact on a population of a marine species or cetacean including its lifecycle

and spatial distribution


result in chemicals, heavy metals, or other potentially harmful substances

accumulating in the marine environment such that biodiversity, ecological

integrity, social amenity or human health may be adversely affected

cause a substantial adverse impact on heritage values.

The following tables show the sources of risk related to activities under the Program

and links these to potentially affected matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act.

Table 3 shows an overview of the activities under the Program and the related ‘sources

of risk’ showing the link between the sources of risk, activities, and the potential

impacts on MNES. There are many common sources of risk between these activities,

and in most cases, there is a potential to impact many, if not all, MNES.

Table 4 provides a comprehensive breakdown of the potential impacts from each of the

sources of risk. For each impact, the link is drawn between the impact and the species,

groups of species or whole matters that are potentially affected.

These tables are to be read in conjunction with Chapter 5 of the draft Strategic

Assessment Report.


Table 3 Development activities that potentially impact MNES

Activities under the Program Potentially affected matters

Sources of risk Urb

an

de

velo

pm

en

t

To

uri

sm

de

ve

lop

men

t

Ind

us

tria

l d

eve

lop

me

nt

Aq

ua

cu

ltu

re d

eve

lop

me

nt

Po

rt d

ev

elo

pm

en

t

Matters protected under EPBC Act

WH - World heritage NH - National heritage Ramsar - Wetlands of international importance TSEC - Listed threatened species and communities MS - Listed migratory species CW - Commonwealth waters GBRMP - Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Land based

Land clearing X X X X X

WH, NH, Ramsar, TSEC, MS, CW, GBRMP

Earthworks X X X X X

Rock blasting X X X X X

Waterway diversions and

water infrastructure X X X X X

Land reclamation X X X X X

Construction activities X X X X X

Port operations e.g. loading

(land and water based) X X X

Dredge material relocation (land and water based)

X X X X

Point source pollution (land and water based)

X X X X X

Non-point source pollution (land and water based)

X X X X

Ongoing use/operation of infrastructure (land and water based)

X X X X X

Personal use of vehicles X X X X

Domestic animals X X

Storage of waste X X X X X

Water based

Construction of marine infrastructure

X X X X X

WH, NH, Ramsar, TSEC, MS, CW, GBRMP

Dredging X X X

X

Anchorages

X X

X

Shipping X X X X

Tourism

Recreational and commercial marine traffic (non-shipping)

X X X X X WH, NH, Ramsar, TSEC, MS, CW, GBRMP

Recreation and tourism in the GBR coastal zone

X X


Table 4 Assessment of potential impacts from development activities under the Program

Impact assessment

Sources of risk Impacts

Land clearing

Terrestrial:

Removal of habitat associated with the removal of vegetation, ground cover,

habitat features (e.g. rocky outcroppings, fallen timber and hollows) resulting in the removal of foraging, breeding, refuge and roosting habitat and for threatened and migratory fauna, loss of coastal and wetland habitat for listed migratory and threatened bird species

Removal or degradation of vegetation or landforms which contribute to the

OUV of WHAs (e.g. superlative natural beauty)

Direct removal of threatened ecological communities and/or threatened flora, reducing connectivity and increasing fragmentation of ecological communities and flora species

Displacement and disturbance of fauna resulting in the disturbance of foraging, roosting and breeding activities of threatened and migratory fauna

Potential injury and mortality to threatened and migratory fauna associated

with direct physical interaction with machinery/equipment

Degradation of surrounding habitat including loss of diversity and fragmentation of habitat, edge effects (increased opportunity for weed growth and alteration of fauna communities), reducing resilience to ongoing and future threats (e.g. fire regimes)

Therefore, the matters that may be affected by these impacts are: WH, NH, Ramsar, TSEC, MS, CW, GBRMP

Water:

Removal of groundcover and reduction in pervious surfaces leading to altered water quality in receiving environments due to erosion and sedimentation (transport of sediment and plant material to receiving waterways via surface water runoff)

Water quality impacts associated with surface runoff containing sediments,

including increased turbidity which may result in reduced light availability, increased temperatures, reduced dissolved oxygen availability resulting in the degradation of foraging habitat (e.g. seagrass) for marine threatened and migratory fauna

Water quality impacts associated with surface runoff containing nutrient rich

sediment and organic matter resulting in algal blooms which may result in reduced light availability, reduced dissolved oxygen availability and toxic effects and subsequently the loss/degradation of foraging habitat (e.g. seagrass) for marine threatened and migratory fauna

Sediment dispersal (e.g. sediment plumes) impacting the superlative natural beauty and OUV of WHAs

Direct sedimentation impacts associated with surface runoff containing

sediments resulting in the burial of aquatic flora and fauna and alteration of substrate

Altered natural hydrological regimes (including environmental flows, water retention, groundwater availability, salinity, exposure of acid sulphate soils) resulting in changes to wetland habitats and impacts to wetland-dependent species (e.g. migratory shorebirds)

Reduced water quality impacting on habitats and species which contribute to the OUV of the WHA and GBRMP (e.g., threatened and migratory marine species)


Cultural heritage:

Physical or indirect disturbances to Indigenous cultural heritage sites (scar-trees)

Therefore the matters that may be affected by these impacts are: NH, GBRMP


Impact assessment


Earthworks (e.g. cutting and filling)

Disturbance of soil, erosion and sedimentation, resulting in disturbance of

acid sulphate and contaminated soil which may lead to acute and chronic effects on threatened coastal and aquatic fauna and flora

Direct disturbance through removal or burial of landforms or habitat supporting threatened or migratory species, or species directly

Alteration of groundwater levels and quality (salinity, acid sulphate leachate) resulting in degradation of habitat for threatened (and migratory) fauna and flora.

Removal of wetland habitat (reducing foraging, breeding and roosting habitat

for migratory shorebirds)

Physical or indirect disturbances to heritage areas and archaeological sites

Introduction of pests, weeds and disease in construction materials which

could reduce the extent of threatened flora or fauna species

Restrict or inhibit the existing use of a heritage place as a cultural or ceremonial site resulting in a loss of heritage values

Altered natural hydrological regimes (including environmental flows, water

retention, groundwater availability) resulting in changes to wetland habitats and impacts to wetland-dependent species (e.g. migratory shorebirds)

Direct sedimentation impacts associated with surface runoff containing sediments resulting in the burial of aquatic flora and fauna and alteration of substrate

Reduced water quality impacting on habitats and species which contribute to the OUV of WHAs (e.g. threatened and migratory marine species).

Removal or degradation of vegetation or landforms which contribute to the

OUV of WHAs (e.g. superlative natural beauty or geomorphology).


Rock blasting Noise and vibration impacts leading to disturbances and displacement of fauna (e.g. roosting migratory birds resulting in fragmentation of populations and reduction of connectivity

Air quality impacts (e.g. dust) resulting in water quality impacts associated with dust deposition and direct impacts on threatened fauna and flora

Direct or indirect disturbances to OUV of WHAs and values of national

heritage places (e.g. archaeological sites, visual landforms, noise)

Direct disturbance through removal or burial of landforms or habitat supporting threatened or migratory species, or species directly


Waterway diversions and water infrastructure (e.g. dams and weirs)

Alteration of flow and flooding regimes of waterways, resulting in the

alteration of estuarine habitat (e.g. distribution of mangroves, seagrass) and alteration of foraging habitat for threatened and migratory fauna

Alteration to traditional landscapes used by local Indigenous groups resulting

in a loss of cultural heritage values

Altered natural hydrological regimes (including environmental flows, water retention, groundwater availability) resulting in changes to wetland habitats and impacts to wetland-dependent species (e.g. migratory shorebirds)

Alteration of flow and flooding regimes of waterways, altering terrestrial habitat and reducing habitat availability and quality for threatened and migratory fauna (e.g. silting /sedimentation)

Altered natural hydrological regimes (including environmental flows, water

retention, groundwater availability) resulting in impacts to OUV of world heritage properties



Impact assessment


Land reclamation Permanent removal of marine plants or marine habitat resulting in reduced

habitat for threatened and migratory fauna (e.g. turtles, dugong, shorebirds)

Removal or degradation of terrestrial coastal habitat supporting threatened and migratory fauna species

Reduced connectivity between coastal and marine habitats (mangroves and

seagrass and inshore corals)

Altered hydrodynamics leading to increased scouring of benthic substrate and bank erosion and resulting in the damage of inter-tidal habitat (e.g. mangroves and seagrass)

Altered water quality associated with increased turbidity which may result in reduced light availability, increased temperatures, reduced dissolved oxygen availability causing distress to threatened (and migratory) marine fauna and flora

Reduced aesthetics of the landscape resulting in the degradation of the OUV of world heritage properties and values of national heritage places (e.g. loss of natural beauty)

Direct removal of threatened ecological communities and/or threatened flora, reducing connectivity and increasing fragmentation of ecological communities and flora species

Direct disturbance through removal or burial of landforms or habitat

supporting threatened or migratory species, or species directly

Disturbance of soils, erosion and sedimentation, disturbance of acid sulphate and contaminated soil which may lead to acute and chronic effects on threatened coastal and aquatic fauna

Alteration of groundwater levels and quality (salinity, acid sulphate leachate) resulting in degradation habitat for threatened and migratory fauna


Construction activities – terrestrial (including use of construction equipment and vehicles)

Removal or degradation of terrestrial coastal habitat supporting threatened

and migratory fauna species, leading to fragmentation of populations

Disturbance of threatened and migrating species associated with the use of construction equipment and vehicles such as noise and vibration, air quality (e.g. dust, carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions), light pollution, pollutants (e.g. oils leaks and spills), spread of pests and weeds and disease leading to displacement of species and reduction of connectivity

Obstruction or barriers to access of traditional lands of local Indigenous groups resulting in a loss of cultural heritage values

Reduced aesthetics of the landscape resulting in the degradation of the OUV of world heritage properties and values of national heritage places (e.g. loss of natural beauty)

Spread of pests and weeds resulting in degradation of threatened ecological communities and reducing resilience to ongoing and future threats

Spread of disease impacting the health of threatened species (e.g. chytrid fungus affecting frogs) and flora, as well as ecological communities


with direct physical interaction with equipment and vehicles

Alteration of flow and flooding regimes of waterways, altering terrestrial habitat and reducing habitat availability and quality for threatened and migratory fauna

Water quality impacts associated with surface runoff containing sediments, increasing turbidity which may result in reduced light availability, increased temperatures and reduced dissolved oxygen availability resulting in the degradation of foraging habitat (e.g. seagrass) for marine threatened and migratory fauna

Direct or indirect disturbances to the OUV of WHAs and the values of national heritage places (e.g. temporarily or permanently reducing the superlative natural beauty or integrity)



Impact assessment


Construction of marine infrastructure (e.g. trestles, jetties, marinas, pontoons, moorings)

Permanent or temporary removal or disturbance to marine plants or marine habitat resulting in reduced habitat for threatened and migratory fauna (e.g. turtles, dugong, shorebirds)

Disturbance of threatened and migrating species associated with construction such as noise and vibration, light pollution (if used at night), pollutants (e.g. oils leaks and spills), leading to displacement of species and increased fragmentation between populations

Noise and vibration impacts associated with the drilling of pilings leading to disturbances and displacement and potential for injury and mortality of threatened and migratory species including dugong and turtles

Altered hydrodynamics leading to increased scouring of benthic substrate and bank erosion and resulting in the damage of intertidal habitat (e.g. mangroves and seagrass)

Water quality impacts (turbidity, suspended sediments, sedimentation), removal and alteration of seabed habitat resulting in the loss of foraging habitat (seagrass) for threatened and migratory fauna


with direct physical interaction with equipment and construction vessels

Altered availability of traditional hunting resources for local Indigenous groups, reducing cultural values in a national heritage area

Direct or indirect disturbances to the OUV of WHAs and the values of national heritage places (e.g. impacts to natural geological or geomorphological processes such as longshore sediment movement)

Air quality impacts (dust) resulting in water quality impacts associated with

dust deposition resulting in disturbance and fragmentation of populations of threatened and migratory species


Dredging Removal of, or disturbance to, marine habitat and potential for injury and mortality of threatened and migratory species

Displacement of marine threatened and migratory species associated with dredging such as noise and vibration, light pollution (if used at night), pollutants (e.g. oils leaks and spills) which can decrease connectivity of populations

Altered behavioural patterns of threatened and migratory marine fauna (e.g. feeding, foraging, breeding) leading to increased fragmentation between populations

Water quality impacts including turbidity and deposition of suspended sediment, disturbance and re-suspension of contaminants, reducing light availability, increased temperatures and reduced dissolved oxygen availability resulting in the degradation of foraging habitat (e.g. seagrass) for marine threatened and migratory fauna

Altered hydrodynamics leading to increased scouring of benthic substrate and bank erosion and resulting in the damage of intertidal habitat (e.g. mangroves and seagrass)

Disturbance to fauna associated with the use of dredge equipment

Injury or mortality of fauna associated with direct interactions with dredge equipment

Noise and vibration impacts associated with the use of dredge equipment

leading to disturbances and potential for injury and mortality of threatened and migratory species including dugong and turtles

Direct or indirect disturbances to the OUV of WHAs and the values of national heritage places (e.g. impacts to natural geological or geomorphological processes such as longshore sediment movement)

Therefore the matters that may be affected by these impacts are: WH, NH, Ramsar, TSEC, MS, CW, GBRMP


Impact assessment


Dredge material disposal including initial and ongoing impacts (this will vary in scale and composition of dredge material)

Disposal on land:

Direct disturbance (e.g. through removal or burial) of landforms or habitat supporting threatened or migratory species

Disturbance of soils, erosion and sedimentation, disturbance of acid sulphate and contaminated soil which may lead to acute and chronic effects on coastal and aquatic fauna

Water quality impacts associated with surface runoff containing sediments, increasing turbidity which may result in reduced light availability, increased temperatures and reduced dissolved oxygen availability resulting in the degradation of foraging habitat (e.g. seagrass) for marine threatened and migratory fauna

Alteration of groundwater quality (e.g. salinity, acid sulphate leachate) resulting in degradation habitat for threatened and migratory fauna

Discharge to receiving waterways from dredge material treatment facilities (e.g. increased levels of suspended sediments in the water column) resulting in the degradation of habitat for threatened and migratory species and threatened ecological communities

Permanent or temporary disturbance to terrestrial plants or habitat resulting in reduced habitat and decreased connectivity of populations of threatened and migratory fauna (e.g. water mouse, rainbow bee-eater)

Permanent or temporary disturbance to threatened ecological communities

resulting in reduction of values and integrity of the community

Air quality impacts (e.g. dust) resulting in water quality impacts associated with dust deposition resulting in disturbance and fragmentation of populations

Air quality impacts (e.g. odours) resulting in impacts to natural values of world heritage properties

Alteration of coastal landforms which contribute to the OUV of WHAs (e.g.

superlative natural beauty).

Altered hydrodynamics associated with spoil used for coastal rehabilitation works (e.g. beach nourishment) leading to altered intertidal habitat (e.g. mangroves and seagrass)

Sea disposal:

Direct disturbance and alteration of seabed habitat (e.g. through removal or burial) resulting in the loss of marine foraging or breeding habitat supporting threatened or migratory species, possible fragmentation and reduction in connectivity

Disturbance, injury or mortality of threatened fauna associated with direct interaction with equipment during relocation

Altered behavioural patterns of threatened and migratory marine fauna (e.g. feeding, foraging, breeding, migration) leading to increased fragmentation between populations

Water quality impacts associated with relocation, such as increased turbidity which may result in reduced light availability, increased temperatures and reduced dissolved oxygen availability as well as the potential for contaminants to be released resulting in the degradation of foraging habitat (e.g. seagrass) for marine threatened and migratory fauna

Noise and vibration impacts associated with vessels and equipment, leading to disturbance and displacement and potential for injury or mortality of threatened and migratory species including dugong and turtles



Impact assessment


Port operations (including loading and unloading activities and cruise ships)

Light pollution impacts on foraging, breeding and roosting of threatened and

migratory species

Habitat disturbance associated with the introduction and spread of marine pests carried on hulls or in ballast water

Altered behavioural patterns of threatened and migratory marine fauna (e.g.

feeding, foraging, breeding, migration) leading to increased fragmentation between populations

Noise and vibration impacts from ship loading and other operational activities on threatened and migratory fauna (e.g. roosting shorebirds, dugongs, dolphins and turtles) including displacement and physical damage to hearing (particularly marine mammals)

Water quality impacts associated with acute and chronic oil and hydrocarbon spills, discharge of oily bilge water and waste, debris and litter, and other ship-sourced pollutants associated with anti-fouling paints which degrade habitat and qualities of the GBRMP

Water and sediment quality impacts from cleaning, repairs and cargo

spillage and ship movements degrading habitat for threatened and migratory species

Air quality impacts from airborne dust (including coal dust) or other contaminants mobilised during ship loading impacting terrestrial threatened and migratory species

Reduced aesthetics of the landscape resulting in the degradation of the OUV of WHAs and values of national heritage places (e.g. loss of natural beauty)


Anchorages Damage to habitat in the GBRMP and commonwealth marine areas (e.g.

seagrass, corals)

Reduced aesthetics of the natural landscape resulting in the degradation of the OUV of world heritage properties and national heritage values (e.g. loss of natural beauty)

Water and sediment quality impacts from cleaning, repairs and cargo spillage reducing habitat quality for threatened and migratory species

Therefore, the matters that may be affected by these impacts are: WH, NH,

TSEC, MS, CW, GBRMP


Impact assessment


Shipping Reduced water quality associated with ship-sourced pollutants (e.g. waste,

sewerage, plastic waste, emissions, anti-fouling compounds, oil spills) resulting in the short or long-term degradation of habitat and physical health of threatened and migratory fauna

Disturbances to inshore marine fauna due to noise and vibration associated

with vessel movement within port channels

Disturbance to marine fauna due to artificial lights leading to changes in migratory behaviours

Reduced water quality associated with ballast water disposal including

ballast tank sediments impacting threatened and migratory marine fauna

Marine pest incursions from species attached to ship hulls which could reduce the extent of native species and/or change the natural surrounding including water quality, resulting in the degradation of habitat for inshore marine fauna species

Collision (e.g. boat strike) resulting in injury and mortality of marine fauna (particularly turtles and dugong) and reduction of traditional hunting sources for local Indigenous groups

Bank erosion and scouring of seabed associated with vessel wakes resulting in the degradation of foraging habitat (e.g. seagrass) and roosting habitat (e.g. mangroves) for threatened and migratory fauna

Damage to habitat associated with accidental groundings, anchoring and mooring (e.g. seagrass, corals)

Direct or indirect disturbances to the OUV of WHAs and the values of national heritage places (e.g. temporarily or permanently reducing the superlative natural beauty)

Therefore, the matters that may be affected by these impacts are: WH, NH,

Ramsar, TSEC, MS, CW, GBRMP

Point sources of pollution (e.g wastewater discharge, discharge from settlement ponds)

Water quality impacts from sewerage effluent and grey water (increased nutrient levels and contaminants in receiving waterways leading to increased algae growth, reduced light availability seagrass and inshore corals, smothering seagrass, coral and benthic habitat), toxic algae blooms (e.g. mortality of aquatic fauna) resulting in the degradation or loss of foraging and breeding habitat or migration pathways for threatened and migratory fauna (e.g. dugongs and turtles)

Direct or indirect disturbances to ecological values contributing to the

GBRMP and OUV of WHAs, and the values of national heritage places (e.g. temporarily or permanently reducing the ecological integrity of natural systems)


Non-point sources of pollution (e.g. stormwater runoff, irrigation activities)

Increased volume of stormwater runoff and reduced water quality associated with the transport of sediments and contaminants to receiving waterways resulting in the degradation of habitat for threatened and migratory species

Increased runoff containing debris and litter leading to injury and mortality of

threatened and migratory marine fauna

Reduced surface and groundwater water quality resulting from seepage of septic tank effluent, fuel from fuel storage resulting in the degradation of habitat for threatened and migratory species

End-use impacts associated with water used for irrigation of golf courses and landscaped areas. This involves increased runoff containing pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals entering receiving waterways and downstream water quality impacts on wetlands, coastal and marine habitats resulting in degradation of habitat for threatened species and migratory species

Direct or indirect disturbances to ecological values contributing to the GBRMP and OUV of WHAs, and the values of national heritage places (e.g. temporarily or permanently reducing the ecological integrity of natural systems)



Impact assessment


Use of personal and commercial vehicles


with direct physical interaction with equipment and vehicles

Disturbance to threatened and migratory species associated with construction equipment and vehicles such as noise and vibration, air quality (e.g. dust, carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions), light pollution (if used at night), pollutants (e.g. oils leaks and spills)

Spread of pests, weeds and disease resulting in degradation of ecological communities and reducing resilience to ongoing and future threats

Reduced aesthetics of the landscape resulting in the degradation of OUV of

WHAs and national heritage values (e.g. loss of natural beauty) Therefore, the matters that may be affected by these impacts are: TSEC, MS, WH, NH, Ramsar, CW, GBRMP

Domestic animals

Disturbance, injury and mortality of threatened and migratory fauna, for example through pet interactions with quolls or cassowaries

Spread of pests, weeds and disease resulting in degradation of ecological communities and reducing resilience to ongoing and future threats

Displacement of species from habitat leading to fragmentation of populations

Direct or indirect disturbances to ecological values contributing to the OUV

of the Wet Tropics WHAs, and the values of national heritage places (e.g. dogs interacting with cassowaries as a value of the world heritage property)

Therefore, the matters in particular that may be affected by these impacts are: WH, NH, Ramsar TSEC, MS, CW, GBRMP

Ongoing use impacts – including operation and maintenance of infrastructure

Wastewater discharge contributing to water quality impacts including increased rates of sedimentation and nutrients (impacting on seagrass and inshore corals

Disturbance of species associated with operation and maintenance such as noise and vibration, air quality, light pollution, pollutants (e.g. oils leaks and spills)

Altered behavioural patterns of threatened and migratory marine fauna (feeding, foraging, breeding, migration) leading to increased fragmentation between populations

Introduction and spread of pests, weeds and disease leading to displacement of species and reduction of connectivity between populations

Water quality impacts associated with surface runoff containing sediments and increasing turbidity, which may lead to reduced light availability, increased temperatures and reduced dissolved oxygen availability resulting in the degradation of foraging habitat (e.g. seagrass) for marine threatened and migratory fauna

Alterations to fire regimes leading to degradation of terrestrial coastal habitat

supporting threatened and migratory fauna species, potentially fragmenting populations and decreasing resilience

Reduced aesthetics of the landscape resulting in the degradation of OUV of WHAs and national heritage values (e.g. loss of natural beauty)

Potential injury and mortality to threatened and migratory fauna associated with direct physical interaction with equipment and vehicles



Impact assessment


Storage of waste (e.g. domestic, regulated and hazardous wastes)

Water quality impacts associated with runoff from storage areas containing

litter and debris, hydrocarbons and other contaminants which degrades habitat, reducing quality and availability for threatened and migratory marine species

Reduced surface and groundwater water quality resulting from seepage of

septic tank effluent, fuel or waste from storage areas, resulting in the degradation of habitat for threatened and migratory species


Air quality impacts (e.g. odours) resulting in impacts to natural values of world heritage properties

Therefore, the matters that may be affected by these impacts are: WH, NH, TSEC, MS, Ramsar, CW, GBRMP

Recreational and commercial marine vessel traffic

Disturbances to marine fauna (e.g. from noise associated with vessels) potentially leading to fragmentation of populations, reduction in connectivity, reduction in foraging, breeding and dispersal areas

Altered behavioural patterns of threatened and migratory marine fauna (e.g. feeding, foraging, breeding, migration) leading to increased fragmentation between populations

Bank erosion and scouring of seabed associated vessel wakes resulting the degradation of foraging habitat for threatened and migratory fauna

Increased debris and litter leading to injury and mortality of threatened and migratory marine fauna

Reduced water quality associated with minor spills and anti-fouling paints resulting in the degradation of habitat and physical health of threatened and migratory fauna

Reduced water quality from accidental waste discharge (e.g. effluent, sewerage, bilge), resulting in the degradation of habitat for threatened and

migratory species

Collision (e.g. boat strike) resulting in injury and mortality of marine fauna (particularly turtles and dugong)

Damage to habitat associated with accidental groundings impacting the

ecological values contributing to the GBRMP and OUV of WHAs, and the values of national heritage places (e.g. temporarily or permanently reducing the ecological integrity of natural systems)

Disturbances, or mortality, of threatened and migratory species resulting in the reduction of access to traditional hunting sources for local Indigenous groups


Recreation and tourism in the GBR coastal zone: Water activities including

snorkelling, diving , swimming, recreational fishing Land activities including off-road

driving, cycling, bush walking, camping, recreational fishing and swimming (vessel-based risks and impacts are discussed above)

Disturbances to fauna associated with noise and altered light regimes

resulting in altered behavioural patterns of threatened and migratory marine fauna (e.g. feeding, foraging, breeding, migration) and increased fragmentation between populations

Degradation of values associated with the GBRMP associated with

trampling, fire wood collection, erosion, spreading weeds and disease and increases in feral and domestic animals on islands and coastal areas

Direct damage to habitat (particularly coral) associated with water activities resulting in degradation of habitat for threatened and migratory fauna and degradation of world heritage and national heritage values




4. The Program and MNES The Program will ensure consideration and management of impacts on MNES and

OUV in accordance with Part 3 of the EPBC Act.

The MNES that could be impacted by activities under the Program are:

the world heritage values of declared world heritage properties

the national heritage values of declared national heritage places

the ecological character of wetlands of international importance

listed threatened species and ecological communities

listed migratory species

Commonwealth marine area

the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

4.1 World heritage

The World Heritage Convention was adopted by UNESCO in 1972 and Australia

became a signatory to the Convention in 1974. The World Heritage List, established by

the convention, comprises those parts of the world’s cultural and natural heritage which

are so important, that they are considered to be of outstanding value to humanity as a

whole. This is known as OUV. State Parties to the Convention undertake to identify,

protect, preserve and present this OUV.

The WHC adopts a Statement of OUV for each property on the World Heritage List. It

is the key reference for the effective protection and management of the property.

To be considered of OUV, a property needs to:

meet 1 or more of the 10 world heritage assessment criteria

meet the world heritage conditions of integrity

if a cultural property, meet the world heritage conditions of authenticity, and

have an adequate system of protection and management to safeguard its

future.

The Statement of OUV comprises a summary of the WHC’s determination that the

property has OUV and identifies the criteria under which the property was inscribed,

including the assessments of the conditions of integrity or authenticity and of the

requirements for protection and management in force.

Properties on the World Heritage List are protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act as

MNES and the matter protected is the property’s world heritage values. For the

purposes of the EPBC Act, a property’s world heritage values are essentially the same

as the Statement of OUV.


The two properties relevant to this strategic assessment are the GBRWHA and the Wet

Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA). The statements of OUV, a description of

values against the criteria and an analysis of condition and trend for these two WHAs

were examined in the Queensland Government’s draft Strategic Assessment Report in

Section 4.2. Further detail on the GBRWHA is discussed in the complementary

GBRMPA Strategic Assessment Report.

4.1.1 Protection of world heritage under the EPBC Act

World heritage values are the ‘matter’ protected under the EPBC Act, and a statement

of OUV is essentially the list of a property’s world heritage values. Under the EPBC

Act, a declared world heritage property is an area that has either been included in the

World Heritage List or declared as such by the Minister to be a world heritage property.

The EPBC Act sets out that a property has world heritage values if it contains natural

heritage or cultural heritage, as defined in the World Heritage Convention, where that

heritage has OUV.

The two world heritage properties relevant to this strategic assessment include the

GBR which is listed only for its natural heritage values, and the Wet Tropics listing was

amended in 2012 to include the national Indigenous cultural values.

Natural heritage values can include features such as geology or geomorphological

landscapes, biological and ecological values which have evolutionary significance, are

rare or endangered or of endemic importance and places which have exceptional

natural beauty or aesthetic characteristics.

Indigenous cultural heritage is made up of tangible and intangible elements of all

cultural practices, resources and knowledge developed, nurtured and defined by

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Traditional Owners express their cultural

heritage through their relationships with country, people, beliefs, knowledge, law and

lore, language, symbols, ways of living, sea, land and objects, all of which arise from

their spirituality.

A range of management arrangements are in place, or planned, for each Australian

property on the World Heritage List. The arrangements include advisory committees

and plans of management.

Assessment of activities under the EPBC Act

Under the EPBC Act, an action or class of actions cannot be approved if the action/s is

inconsistent with:

Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention

the Australian World Heritage Management Principles (Schedule 5 of the EPBC

Regulations)

a plan that has been prepared for the management of the declared world

heritage property under section 316 or as described in section 321 of the

EPBC Act.

Additionally, an action or class of actions cannot be approved if the action/s would have

an unacceptable impact on a world heritage property.


Whether an activity would have an unacceptable impact depends on the size, scale

and intensity of any potential impacts and the values that may be affected. Under the

EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.18, an activity is likely to have a significant

impact on the world heritage values of a declared world heritage property if there is a

real chance or possibility that it will cause:

one or more of the world heritage values to be lost

one or more of the world heritage values to be degraded or destroyed

one or more of the world heritage values to be notably altered, modified,

obscured or diminished.

Relevant documents that are considered when assessing the potential impacts and

risks to world heritage properties include the Statement of OUV, any specific policy

document such as the EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the OUV of the Great Barrier

Reef World Heritage Area9 and Plans of Management (if relevant).

EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the OUV of the GBRWHA

The EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the OUV of the GBRWHA have been developed

to assist proponents of a development to determine whether an action needs to be

referred to the Minister for consideration in relation to the GBRWHA. Guidance is

provided on:

the concept of OUV

the types of actions that may require a referral

how to avoid, reduce or manage impacts on the OUV of the GBRWHA.

Plans of management

Plans of management are used to formulate and implement planning so as to promote

the wise use and conservation of world heritage properties. Plans of management

should be consistent with the World Heritage Convention and the EPBC Regulations

2000 (Australian World Heritage Management Principles).

Section 316 of the EPBC Act states that the Australian Government is required to make

a plan of management for world heritage properties entirely within one or more

Commonwealth areas, but not within a Commonwealth Reserve. For all other world

heritage properties, best endeavours are being used to ensure that there is a plan of

management in place that is consistent with the EPBC Regulations 2000 (Australian

World Heritage Management Principles).

According to the Australian World Heritage Management Principles, the primary

purpose of management of a world heritage property is to identify, protect, conserve,

present, transmit to future generations and, if appropriate, rehabilitate the world

heritage values of the property.

4.1.2 Protection of world heritage under the Program

The Queensland Government has committed to identify, protect, conserve and transmit

the OUV of world heritage properties to future generations.

8 http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/significant-impact-guidelines-11-matters-national-environmental-significance

9 http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/draft-epbc-act-referral-guidelines-outstanding-universal-value-great-barrier-reef-world


The Program contains a clear prohibition in relation to mining activities within the

boundaries of the GBRWHA which is consistent with maintaining the OUV of these

areas. Under the IGA, the Queensland Government has committed to not allowing

mining activities in the GBRWHA.

Under the NC Act a mining interest (i.e. any activity authorised under the Mineral

Resources Act 1989) cannot be granted in a national park. Mining is also a prohibited

activity in the wet tropics area under the Wet Tropic Management Plan 1998 except if it

is under a licence, permit or other authority given under the Mineral Resources Act

1989.

A case study on how the Coordinator-General assesses a mining application within a

world heritage property is in Section 4.1.4.

Potential impacts of activities

Actions that are likely to have a significant impact on the values of a world heritage

property will be addressed by the Program in the planning or development assessment

process.

The potential impacts on any world heritage property are dependent on the world

heritage values of that place and the location and nature of the action being proposed.

Assessment of activities through EIS processes

The Program outlines the planning process and describes the EIS processes that will

be undertaken for activities in the GBR coastal zone. The EIS processes require

proponents to identify and demonstrate that any impacts on a world heritage property

will be sustainable and of an acceptable level.

The EIS processes require the preparation of EIS documentation and adequate

opportunity for public consultation as described in the Program Report.

To assist proponents to satisfactorily consider world heritage properties in their

preparation of EIS documents, the Queensland and Australian governments will work

together to develop MNES guidelines that proponents will have regard to in preparing a

project proposal and EIS documents.

The MNES guidelines will:

guide proponents to DOE’s Protected Matters Search Tool to determine if the

project may be in, adjacent to or near a world heritage property

direct proponents to the relevant guidance documents including statements of

OUV, plans of management and EPBC Act guidance documents

require proponents proposing activities that may potentially impact the

GBRWHA to consider the EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the OUV of the

GBRWHA and any other guidance prepared in this regard

require a description of the world heritage values that could be impacted by the

proposed activity

require an analysis of the potential risks and impacts to those values

require identification of appropriate environmental management strategies

guide proponents to the Australian Government’s offset policy if there are offset

requirements for MNES


provide examples of what could be considered an unacceptable impact on a

world heritage property.

The Queensland Government will work with the Australian Government, including the

GBRMPA, to develop a cumulative impact assessment guideline that will provide

guidance to proponents undertaking a cumulative impact assessment.

Queensland Government responsibilities

In the planning and EIS process, the Queensland Government will have regard to

relevant policy documents, guidelines, Statements of OUV and plans of management.

The Program applies the principles of ESD through the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’

hierarchy when undertaking both planning and development assessment activities

regarding potential impacts to world heritage.

The EIS processes will ensure a rigorous assessment of the proponent’s project

proposal and documentation, including the appropriateness and acceptability of

identified environmental management arrangements.

Outcome-based conditions applied to projects by the Queensland Government will

outline minimum requirements while environmental management plans associated with

projects will contain mandatory reporting and detailed mitigation measures required to

minimise impacts as far as possible. Compliance measures can be applied to

proponents who do not adhere to conditions.

The Program will also ensure an assessment of the proponent’s capability to

implement the environmental management arrangements including monitoring,

reporting, adaptive management and offset requirements.

The Australian Government’s offset policy will be implemented for MNES under the

Program, ensuring a net benefit to MNES. The Queensland Government’s offset policy

will be implemented for state matters.

4.1.3 Outcomes for world heritage under the Program

Regarding world heritage properties, the Queensland Government commits to:

(1) not accepting any project proposal that involves mining in the GBRWHA

(2) not approving a project that proposes activities that will contravene a plan of

management for a world heritage Property or proposes unacceptable impacts to

the world heritage values of a world heritage Property

(3) ensuring there are no unacceptable impacts to world heritage properties resulting

from developments that undertake an EIS process under the Program.

Other relevant commitments under the Program

The Program Report details other commitments that directly or indirectly support the

protection of world heritage values including the implementation of the QPS, the

North East Shipping Management Plan, ongoing monitoring and reporting including

explicit consideration of MNES, and the LTSP and associated initiatives. The Program

also supports the Queensland Government’s commitment for the protection of world

heritage through initiatives such as the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership and

Queensland Wetlands and Wet Tropics Programs.

Case study 1—World Heritage: Prohibition of mining activity


4.1.4 Case study 1—World heritage: Prohibition of mining activity

This case study is a hypothetical scenario and does not relate to any existing or

proposed project. It has been written to show how the EIS process of the SDPWO Act

can be used to manage impacts of future projects on MNES. The scenario presented in

the case study is assumed to be of a scale that warrants declaration as a coordinated

project under the SDPWO Act.

Purpose

The purpose of this case study is to demonstrate how the Program would be applied to

ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on world heritage sites.

For ease of illustration, this case study uses the example of how the SDPWO Act

operates to protect WHA controlling provisions under the EPBC Act (controlling

provisions). Note, a live EIS project proposal undergoing an assessment under this

SDPWO Act would consider all relevant MNES covered by the Program.

This case study specifically refers to a proposed tin mine to show how the Program, in

particular the EIS process under the SDPWO Act, would be applied to protect world

heritage sites from mining.

The EIS process under the SDPWO Act is in practice a thorough and rigorous process

that considers the social, economic and environmental effects of a project, including

impacts on MNES and OUV. This case study has been developed to show how the

Program would protect world heritage sites using mining as an example. Through the

EIS process the Coordinator-General considers all environmental values affected by

the project with specific reference to MNES.

Scenario

A proponent is seeking approval for a new metalliferous mining activity in a national

park area within the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA).

Development of the tin and tungsten deposits would be by conventional, metalliferous,

open-cut mine using diesel powered equipment, mining scheelite ore with a waste to

ore ratio of approximately four to one. Up to 1 M tonnes of ore would be mined per year

for at least 10 years. Waste rock would be dumped in out of pit landforms currently

downhill of the mine.

Major activities of the project include ore processing, tailings management, waste rock,

stormwater drainage and storage, transport, water supply, power and waste

management. As this is a high rainfall area the effect of seasonal rainfall on water

management on site to prevent the release of unauthorised contaminants from the site

is a critical consideration. Thus, the activity has the potential to have a significant

impact on the integrity of the WTWHA and its OUV.

In this case the Coordinator-General decided not to declare the project a coordinated

project under section 26(1) of the SDPWO Act. The reasons for the Coordinator-

General’s decision were based on the findings that the proposal would be inconsistent

with relevant planning schemes or policy frameworks of a local government, the

Case study 1—World Heritage: Prohibition of mining activity


Queensland or Australian governments (section 27(1)(b)); and relevant Queensland

Government policies and priorities (section 27(1)(c)).

As the proposed location of the mine is within a national park, this activity would not be

permitted. Under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 a mining interest (i.e. any activity

authorised under the Mineral Resources Act 1989) cannot be granted in relation to a

national park. Mining is also a prohibited activity in the wet tropics area under the Wet

Tropic Management Plan 1998 except if it is under a licence, permit or other authority

given under the Minerals Resource Act 1989.

It was also determined that the project would not be consistent in meeting:

Outcomes of the Wet Tropics Management Authority Strategic Plan 2013-2018

in meeting Australia’s international obligations under the WH Convention which

are to ensure the protection, conservation, presentation, rehabilitation, and

transmission to future generations, of the natural heritage of the area. The

project would not meet Australia’s international obligations under the

Convention as it would have the potential to adversely affect the integrity of the

Area and its OUV.

Management principles for national parks. Under the Nature Conservation Act

1992 a national park is managed to provide to the greatest possible extent, for

the permanent preservation of the area’s natural condition and the protection of

the area’s cultural resources and values; and to ensure that the only use of the

area is nature-based and ecologically sustainable.

The desired regional outcome for the natural environment of the Far North

Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031: The region’s terrestrial and aquatic

natural assets, which include the Wet Tropics and Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Areas, are protected and enhanced to increase their resilience to the

impacts of climate change. The project would be expected to have an adverse

impact on biological and ecological values of the WTWHA by fragmenting,

isolating or substantially damaging habitat that is important for the conservation

of biological diversity in the WTWHA and thereby impacting on areas resilience

to threats such as climate change.

The Coordinator-General would not declare a coordinated project that is inconsistent

with local, Queensland and Australian Government policy frameworks and relevant

planning schemes which are based on preventing unacceptable impacts on WHAs.

Case study 2—World Heritage, GBR Marine Park and Commonwealth marine areas: Resort development


4.1.5 Case study 2—World heritage, GBR Marine Park and Commonwealth marine areas: Resort development






Purpose


ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on the OUV and integrity of the GBRWHA,

GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment.


would protect the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment which

are MNES controlling provisions under the EPBC Act (sections 12 and 15A; 24B and

24C; and 23 and 24A respectively). It is important to note that an actual assessment

under this SDPWO Act would fully consider all relevant MNES covered by the

Program.

This case study specifically refers to the GBRWHA, GBRMP and the Commonwealth

marine environment to demonstrate how the Program, and in particular the EIS

process under the SDPWO Act, would be applied to identify the potential impacts of

resort development and measures to protect OUV and integrity of the GBRWHA,

GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment.

The EIS process under the SDPWO Act is a thorough and rigorous process that

considers the social, economic and environmental effects of a project, including

impacts on MNES and OUV. Through the EIS process, the Coordinator-General

considers all environmental values affected by the project, including specific references

to MNES.

As discussed in Chapter 3 of this report, resort development activities generally involve

land clearance and earthworks to prepare the site, construction works and then

ongoing activities associated with the operation of the resort (e.g. sewage treatment,

potable water treatment, solid waste management, operation of marine vessels

including the ferry, daily tours/fishing charters and private boats). These activities could

lead to run-off of contaminated water on to the reef and would increase the risk of

vessel collisions with marine mega-fauna (e.g. turtles, dugong and dolphins) and

disturbances to marine fauna associated with vessel movements and noise.

Resort development in the GBR coastal zone may also involve tidal works (including

dredging) for the development of marinas. Such works can result in water quality

impacts (i.e. increased turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations, which may

result in a reduction in light for light dependent ecosystems such as seagrass and

corals) and may also result in direct disturbances to the marine environment (e.g.

removal of seagrass). Development in the GBR coastal zone may also result in visual

amenity impacts which have the potential to impact on OUV of the WHA.



The activities associated with a resort development project create the potential to

impact on multiple MNES. Details of these activities, the associated risks and their

impacts are included in Table 2 and 3.

This case study outlines the process from initial application by a developer to the

licensing and development approval process as well as conditioning, monitoring,

reporting and auditing.

Scenario

A proponent is seeking approval for development of a resort on an island in the

Whitsunday Islands which is located within the GBRWHA and is surrounded by the

GBRMP. The proposal includes:

new hotel comprising 100 rooms and day spa

500 low-rise tourism resort villas and 100 apartments

retail village with a mix of cafes, restaurants, clothing shops

marina comprising 150 berths and yacht club (servicing fishing charters, daily

tours to the reef and privately owned vessels)

ferry terminal providing regular daily services to the mainland and to other

Islands in the Whitsunday group

conservation area.

As the project will require multiple approvals at the local, state and Commonwealth

levels and would involve significant capital investment, the proponent has applied to

the Coordinator-General for the project to be declared a coordinated project under the

SDPWO Act. Due to the project’s scope and complexity and the potential significant

environmental effects of the project, including on the GBRWHA, GBRMP and

Commonwealth marine environment, the Coordinator-General is likely to declare this a

coordinated project for which an EIS is required, under Part 4 of the SDPWO Act.

The project has the potential to cause impacts to elements of the terrestrial and marine

environment which are important to the OUV and integrity of the GBRWHA and the

values of the GBRMP including but not limited to impacts on water quality, species and

their habitats and visual amenity.

As the proposed development site is not located within a Commonwealth marine area

the project is not expected to directly impact on the Commonwealth marine

environment. However, the project may have indirect impact on the commonwealth

marine environment from increased recreational boating activity (e.g. fishing charters

and day tours). The activity therefore has the potential to have a significant impact on

the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment.

1. Determine the likelihood of a significant impact on MNES and subsequent

assessment process

At the application stage, the proponent must provide an Initial Advice Statement (IAS)

which describes the proposal and discusses potential environmental impacts of the

project, on both the general environment and MNES, including GBRWHA, GBRMP and

Commonwealth marine environment.



The proponent would use the Australian Government’s Protected Matters Search Tool

for identifying potentially relevant MNES in the project area and assessing potential

impacts.

The IAS would need to include a description of the project’s key components and the

proposed construction and operational activities, a description of the GBRWHA,

GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment values likely to be impacted by the

project, the nature and extent of likely impacts and an outline of proposed measures

that will be implemented to reduce impacts on these values.

From the information provided in the IAS, the Coordinator-General must be able to gain

an understanding of the potential scale and nature of the impacts to GBRWHA,

GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment values that would be associated with

the proposed project.

The content of the IAS informs the preparation of the terms of reference (TOR) for the

EIS, which would include specific references to the GBRWHA, GBRMP and

Commonwealth marine environment.

For the GBRWHA MNES, the TOR will require that the EIS:

identify and describe the characteristics and values of the GBRWHA that are

likely to be impacted by the project. Values include, but are not restricted to:

water quality, exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance of the area,

species of conservation significance and the significant regional habitat for

listed threatened and migratory species

provide an assessment of the relevant impacts of the proposed development on

the characteristics and values, and how this in turn impacts on the overall

values of the GBRWHA including reference to the statement of OUV for the

GBRWHA

describe the relevant impacts of the proposal on the integrity and outstanding

universal value of the GBRWHA, including, but not limited to, impacts as a

result of changes to coastal processes and water quality, and visual amenity

impacts

assess the impacts of the proposed development against relevant reports and

documents published as part of the GBR and GBR coast strategic assessments

describe the residual impacts of the proposed development after all proposed

avoidance and mitigation measures are taken into account. Where residual

impacts to the outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA are likely to be

significant, include proposed offsets consistent with the EPBC Act

Environmental Offsets Policy.

For projects potentially impacting on the GBRMP, the TOR will require that the EIS:

identify and describe the environment in the GBRMP that is likely to be

impacted by the project


the environment in the GBRMP with regard to: the object of the EPBC Act; the

object of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Parks Act 1975; and the Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983





impacts to the environment in the GBRMP are likely to be significant, include

proposed offsets consistent with the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy.

For projects potentially impacting on Commonwealth marine areas, the TOR will

require that the EIS:

identify and describe the Commonwealth marine environment that is likely to be

impacted by the project


the Commonwealth marine environment with regard to: the object of the EPBC

Act; the object of the marine bioregional plan; and the object of Australian IUCN

reserve management principles



impacts to the Commonwealth marine environment are likely to be significant,

include proposed offsets consistent with the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets

Policy.

The Coordinator-General’s ‘coordinated project’ declaration will ensure that a resort

development activity with the potential to cause significant environmental impacts on

MNES such as the GBRWHA and GBRMP would be assessed through an EIS process

under the SDPWO Act.

2. Assess the adequacy of the information provided and make an informed

decision

The proponent must prepare the EIS according to the TOR provided by the

Coordinator-General which would include specific and detailed information on the

potential impacts on the GBRHWA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment

as the relevant MNES. The proponent would be required to address MNES in a

standalone chapter of the EIS.

The adequacy of the TOR to cover all matters that must be addressed in the EIS is

reviewed by the Coordinator-General, state government advisory agencies and the

public, including key stakeholders, through a public consultation process on the draft

TOR.

The proponent would be directed to the MNES guidelines (Commitment 6) and to the

EPBC Act referral guidelines for the outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier

Reef World Heritage Area which provide guidance on how impacts on the GBRWHA,

GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment will need to be addressed to

adequately meet EPBC Act requirements.

The proponent would need to use the DOE’s Protected Matters Search Tool to

determine the boundaries of the GBRWHA, GBRMP and the Commonwealth marine

environment in relation to their project and any other MNES that may be impacted by

the project. In doing so, the proponent would also need to consider the EPBC Act

Significant Impact Guidelines for the GBRWHA, GBRMP and the Commonwealth

marine environment and other relevant guidelines to determine the potential impacts of



the project. These documents would also assist the proponent to determine the general

characteristics of the site, potential impacts and other threats.

After using the above policy and guidance documents, the proponent would need to

undertake on-the-ground studies, surveys and research. Many of the studies

undertaken will require an assessment covering all seasons of a year. These ground

truthing activities will ensure there is accurate, site-specific identification of the EPBC

Act protected matters of the area and the potential impacts on those MNES.

The EIS would need to provide a description of the resort development activity, in this

case the resort components (including all elements of the resort development and the

operational activities of the resort that are essential for informing the nature and scale

of the activity), a full description of all emissions, characteristics of the potentially

impacted area with specific reference to the GBRWHA (OUV and integrity), GBRMP

and the Commonwealth marine environment. It must also include and any other

activities in the location (proposed, approved or already undertaken) impacting on the

immediate environment or adjacent waters which may affect the GBRWHA (OUV and

integrity), GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment.

The EIS describes the level of impact of the project on the GBRWHA, GBRMP and the

Commonwealth marine environment while also having regard to other activities in the

area contributing to those impacts. The EIS gives due consideration to the residual and

cumulative impacts caused by the project in the context of the existing environmental

condition in the area.

The description of the activity and its impacts on the GBRWHA (OUV and integrity),

GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment and the description of other activities

impacting on these must be sufficient to inform the risk assessment of potential impacts

on the GBRWHA and GBRMP and Commonwealth marine areas. This includes

existing condition and threats and associated susceptibility to impacts potentially

associated with the project.

In describing the values of the GBRWHA (including OUV), GBRMP and

Commonwealth marine environment, and the potential impacts within the EIS, the

proponent would need to consider the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines (for the

GBRWHA, GBRMP, Commonwealth marine environment), relevant conservation

advice, threat abatement plans (e.g. marine debris) and recovery plans for species that

are important to the value of the GBRWHA, GBRMP, and marine bioregional plans for

Commonwealth marine reserves.

The EIS must provide sufficient information to enable the Coordinator-General to

determine whether reasonable measures are being proposed to avoid and mitigate

impacts on the GBRWHA, GBRMP and the Commonwealth marine environment and

whether any significant residual impacts will require an offset.

To ensure that adequate information has been provided in the EIS, state government

advisory agencies, including but not limited to DEHP, DAFF, the Department of

National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing (DNPRSR) and local government are

specifically invited to make a submission on the EIS during the public consultation

period. Briefings are held with advisory agencies to provide guidance on the EIS

contents and critical issues.



These agencies would provide specialist advice on potential impacts associated with

the resort development and the appropriateness and likely effectiveness of the

identified mitigation measures and where appropriate suggest possible offsets,

monitoring and auditing requirements.

The proponent must give consideration to all comments made in the consultation

phase including those from advisory agencies and the public. The proponent may alter

the design of the project to reduce the environmental impact in response to

submissions.

If the Coordinator-General is not satisfied that the EIS provides sufficient information on

environmental impacts to undertake an adequate evaluation of the project, specifically

the GBRWHA (OUV and integrity), GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment in

this case, additional information would be requested from the proponent.

For example, the Coordinator-General may not be satisfied that the EIS provides

sufficient information on the management of visual amenity and water quality impacts

and will request the proponent to provided additional information. Whist reviewing the

draft additional material, the Coordinator-General may seek advice from advisory

agencies on the adequacy of the additional information, particularly in addressing

matters raised in submissions on the EIS, including public submissions.

The advisory agencies recommend approval conditions for the Coordinator-General's

consideration during the preparation of the evaluation report on the EIS.

Offsets

As this project involves potential impacts on turtles and dugong which are important

values of the GBRWHA, GBRMP and the Commonwealth marine environment

including a potential risk of boat strike and the removal of important foraging habitat

(e.g. seagrass), the EIS would be required to include a draft offsets strategy proposal

for the Coordinator-General’s consideration.

The offsets strategy would need to describe the proposed offsets for these residual

impacts to demonstrate how it will provide an appropriate benefit for these species.

Offsets may also be required for the loss of world heritage or other values.

The Australian Government offset policy would be used when determining the

adequacy of the offset proposal to compensate for residual significant impacts to the

species that are values to the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine

environment.

Once the Coordinator-General considers that the EIS provides sufficient information to

appropriately assess the impacts of the project and the acceptability of the impacts on

the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment, the process

proceeds to the evaluation stage.

The Coordinator-General will not accept an EIS that does not provide adequate

information regarding the values of and potential impacts on the GBRWHA, GBRMP

and the Commonwealth marine environment, and the inclusion of appropriate

mitigation strategies (including offsets for residual impacts) which reduce impacts to an

acceptable level.



3. Public consultation occurs in a transparent manner and outcomes are

addressed in the EIS

The EIS process includes at least one opportunity for the public to be consulted on the

potential impacts of the project, and proposed avoidance, mitigation and offsets

measures. Public comment can be sought on the draft TOR and must be sought on the

EIS. Where a project has changed significantly since the EIS public consultation phase,

further public consultation may be sought on additional information requested by the

Coordinator-General.

Public consultation must be notified via various methods including media releases,

newspaper advertisements, webpage updates, public displays at libraries and letters to

local, state and federal members, Queensland and Australian government Ministers,

and relevant state advisory agencies. Under the SDPWO Act, statutory public notices

are required for each public consultation process to ensure the public is formally

notified of the opportunity to provide submissions on the EIS.

Meetings may be arranged by the Coordinator-General’s office between the proponent,

advisory agencies and key stakeholders to resolve any technical issues for the project

(e.g. dredge material placement options) and/or to gain advice on other matters of

interest or concern. Advisory agencies for this project that may be involved in such

meetings would include but not limited to DEHP, DAFF and DNRM.

The EIS would be finalised, taking into account all the comments received during the

consultation period and any other submission the Coordinator-General accepts.

The Coordinator-General will not accept a final TOR, EIS or additional information to

the EIS that has not addressed the comments received during any public consultation

process undertaken.

4. Determination of project acceptability—no unacceptable impacts on MNES

Step 1 – Coordinator-General’s report

The Coordinator-General’s report would determine that the proponent has adequately

identified, avoided and mitigated the proposed environmental impacts, including those

on the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment, and where

significant residual or cumulative impacts after avoidance and mitigation strategies

have been implemented, that an offset strategy has been included.

The Coordinator-General will recommend conditions to ensure that there will not be

unacceptable impacts to the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine

environment. The conditions would include the implementation of an agreed offsets

strategy in accordance with the EPBC Act offsets strategy and any state offsets

determined by the Coordinator-General.



The Coordinator-General will not recommend that a project proceeds if it will result in

unacceptable impacts to the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine

environment; or if it is inconsistent with a threat abatement plan or recovery plan

relating to species that are important to the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth

marine environment (e.g. Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia and the Threat

Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life).

The Coordinator-General will also consider the conservation advice in regards to any

species important to the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine environment

(e.g. Approved Conservation Advice for Dermochelys coriacea [Leatherback Turtle]).

Step 2 – Development approvals and conditioning

The Coordinator-General's report on the EIS is not an approval in itself. When

completed, this report is sent to the Integrated Development Assessment System

assessment manager and other assessment managers as supporting information for

their consideration regarding development approval applications through the

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SP Act).

The proponent is also required to obtain all other development approvals and licences

from local authorities (e.g. building approvals and material change of use approvals)

and state government agencies (e.g. environmental authority, marine parks permit,

fauna damage mitigation permit).

The conditions to protect the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine

environment outlined in the Coordinator-General's report will gain legal effect once they

are attached to a development approval given under other specific legislation (e.g. SP

Act or under the EPBC Act).

The assessment manager ultimately decides whether development approvals are

granted for the proposed project. The assessment manager has the ability to refuse the

project, even if the Coordinator-General’s evaluation report has recommended that the

project proceed.

If approvals are granted, the assessment managers must attach the Coordinator-

General’s conditions in regards to the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine

environment to the granted development approval, where appropriate.

The assessment manager may also impose further conditions on the development

approvals in regards to the GBRWHA, GBRMP and Commonwealth marine

environment, provided that they are not inconsistent with the conditions stated in the

Coordinator-General’s evaluation report.

In this case, the resort development project would require development approvals

including but not limited to:

preliminary approval for material change of use to override the planning scheme

(section 242 of the SP Act)

authorisation and sales permit/s before taking, destroying, accessing, sampling,

quarrying or removing any forest products or quarry material extractive

resources owned by the State unless an exemption applies under another Act—

taking, destroying, accessing, sampling and quarrying resources—Forestry Act

1959



development permit for operational works—vegetation clearing—Land Act 1994

and Vegetation Management Act 1999

development permit for operational works—tidal works under the Coastal

Protection and Management Act 1995

development approval and environmental authority for relevant environmentally

relevant activities (ERA)—Environmental Protection Act 1994 and associated

regulation and policies , including ERA 8—chemical storage, ERA 16—

extractive activities including dredging and ERA 63—sewage treatment

development permit for operational works—taking or interfering with water—

Water Act 2000

development permit for operational works—taking water from aquifers—Water

Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008

development permit for operational works—if aspects of project that may impact

on the a property as listed on the Queensland Heritage Register— Queensland

Heritage Act 1992

permit to carry out activities—aspects of project that may impact on areas or

objects of Aboriginal cultural heritage significance—Aboriginal Cultural Heritage

Act 2003.

The proposed offset strategy would also require endorsement by DEHP to ensure

offsets for impacts to the GBRMP are appropriate and adequate.

Enforcement of conditions attached to a development approval is the responsibility of

the assessment manager or the nominated responsible State agency.

Potential conditions

Possible outcome-focused conditions that could be applied through SPA or EP Act

approvals to protect the GBRWHA and GBRMP from impacts of resort development

may include, but are not limited to:

Visual amenity condition. Building heights must not exceed three storeys for all

buildings, with the exception of the buildings within the marina precinct and the

resort hotel which must not exceed 5 storeys or 23 metres in height (whichever

height is lower).

Colour schemes and design. Buildings’ colour schemes and design must blend

in with the geography and vegetation of the surrounding area as outlined in the

code of development

Lighting. All lighting fixtures must be installed to prevent upward light spill.

Water quality condition. A Receiving Environment Monitoring Program (REMP)

must be developed and implemented to monitor, identify, describe and respond

to any adverse impacts to:

surface water quality

water flows

aquatic flora and fauna

any receiving waters.



Listed threatened species’ condition. Prior to the commencement of

construction activities, a suitably qualified person must develop impact

avoidance and mitigation management measures that maximise the ongoing

protection and long-term conservation of EPBC Act listed matters known or

likely to occur within the project area. Mitigation management measures must

be supported by a program of monitoring and reporting to facilitate adaptive

management, be consistent with the provisions of the NC Act and be

implemented for all stages of the project construction and operations.

Land use condition. The design and location of infrastructure must, to the

greatest extent practicable, minimise:

adverse impacts to the functioning and biodiversity of ecosystems

adverse impacts to soil structure and soil quality

the clearing of native vegetation associated with the project

a Property Vegetation Management Plan (PVMP) which is consistent with

section 11 of the Vegetation Management Regulation 2012 must be

implemented on the site.

Offsets plan condition. The proponent must prepare a site based offsets plan to

address significant residual impacts on the GBRWHA and GBRMP and

Commonwealth marine environment. The offsets plan must be approved by the

Coordinator-General, and implemented within one year of commencement of

construction, or as directed by the Coordinator-General.



Receiving Environment Monitoring Program

The REMP must include periodic monitoring for the effects of any release on the receiving

environment as a result of contaminant releases to waters from the site.

The REMP must:

assess the condition or state of receiving waters spatially within the REMP area,

considering background water quality characteristics based on accurate and reliable

monitoring data that takes into consideration temporal variation (e.g. seasonality)

establish parameters to be monitored including but not limited to turbidity and Total

Suspended Solids (TSS), nutrients, metals and metalloids and justify:

the parameters chosen

assumptions and choices made in preparation of the REMP.

be designed to facilitate assessment against water quality objectives for the relevant

environmental values that need to be protected

detail monitoring locations and water quality indicators pertinent to the sensitive receptor

types and locations that have been designed to:

determine the baseline condition of water quality and sensitive receptors (i.e., corals

and seagrass meadows) within the zone of influence to a sufficient resolution to be

capable of reliably detecting lethal and sublethal (stress) impacts

develop or adopt locally-relevant trigger values for key water quality indicators

including turbidity

provide on-line real-time monitoring capability for key sediment plume-related

indicators (including but not limited to turbidity, pH, EC).

specify the frequency and timing of sampling required in order to reliably assess ambient

conditions and to provide sufficient data to derive site specific background reference values

in accordance with the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 (Proserpine River,

Whitsunday Island and O'Connell River Basins Environmental Values and Water Quality

Objectives) (DEHP 2013)

include, where appropriate, monitoring of metals/metalloids in sediments (in accordance

with ANZECC and ARMCANZ 200027 and/or the most recent version of Australian

Standard 5667.1)

apply procedures and/or guidelines from ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000 and other relevant

guideline documents

describe sampling and analysis methods and quality assurance and control

justify all assumptions and choices made in preparation of the REMP.

be implemented for a minimum of 12 months prior to commencement of construction

activity and not cease until construction is completed.

A report outlining the findings of the REMP, including all monitoring results and interpretations

must be prepared and made publicly available on the proponent’s website annually, within one

month of its completion and remain for the duration of the action. The first report must be

published prior to the commencement of construction. This report must include an assessment

of background reference water quality in the REMP area compared against the water quality

objectives established in the REMP.

After at least 12 months of implementation of the REMP, the proponent must set discharge

criteria for relevant parameters, against which future discharges from marina must be

monitored.



Step 3 – Monitoring, compliance and auditing

Monitoring, compliance and auditing will be determined based on the conditions

imposed by the Coordinator-General and other assessment manager(s) for the relevant

development approvals with consideration to the following:

any conditions or recommendations imposed by the Coordinator-General are

legally enforceable

compliance with 'stated conditions' from the Coordinator-General is monitored

and enforced by the relevant administering authority

conditions apply to anyone who undertakes the project, including the project

proponent and the proponent's agents, contractors, subcontractors or licensees

project proponents are also required to engage an independent and suitably

qualified person/s to conduct a third party audit of compliance with imposed

conditions. The audit reports must be submitted to the Coordinator-General for

review.

The Coordinator-General will enforce compliance with ‘imposed’ conditions outlined in

his report for a coordinated project approved under the SDPWO Act and utilise the

auditing process to ensure that the appropriate monitoring activity is undertaken.


4.2 National heritage

The National Heritage List is a list of places of outstanding heritage significance to

Australia. It comprises places with natural, historic and/or Indigenous cultural values.

Each place in the National Heritage List has been assessed by an independent body,

the Australian Heritage Council, to determine whether the place has national heritage

values. The Environment Minister makes the final decision on whether a place is listed.

Under the EPBC Act, a place is included on the National Heritage List if the Minster is

satisfied that the place meets one or more of the national heritage criteria prescribed in

the EPBC Regulations. The listed values are then gazetted.

The national heritage places relevant to this strategic assessment are the GBR and

Wet Tropics national heritage places. The description of national heritage values and

an analysis of condition and trend for these two national heritage areas were examined

in the Queensland Government’s draft Strategic Assessment Report. Further detail on

the GBR national heritage places is in the complementary strategic assessment reports

prepared by the GBRMPA.

4.2.1 Protection of national heritage under the EPBC Act

A variety of management arrangements are in place, or planned, for each Australian

national heritage place on the National Heritage List.

Under the EPBC Act an action or class of actions cannot be approved if the action/s is

inconsistent with:

National Heritage Management Principles (Schedule 5B of the EPBC

Regulations)

an agreement to which the Australian Government is party in relation to the

national heritage place

a plan that has been prepared for the management of the national heritage

place under section 324S or as described in section 324 of the EPBC Act.

An action or class of actions also cannot be approved if the action/s would have a

clearly unacceptable impact on a national heritage place.

Whether the action/s would have an unacceptable impact depends on the size, scale

and intensity of its potential impacts and the values that may be affected. Under the

EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, an action is likely to have a significant

impact on the national heritage values of a gazetted national heritage place if there is a

real chance or possibility that it will cause:

one or more of the national heritage values to be lost

one or more of the national heritage values to be degraded or damaged

one or more of the national heritage values to be notably altered, modified,

obscured or diminished.



When assessing the impacts of an activity on a national heritage places, the

assessment process should look at the full range of gazetted values and identify those

values likely to be affected by the activity. The proponent will then need to examine

how the national heritage value might be affected and determine how impacts can be

addressed and substantially reduced. The proponent needs to also provide adequate

opportunity for public consultation.

Relevant documents will be considered when assessing whether a project is likely to

have an impact on a national heritage place, including plans of management for the

place. Relevant documents that should be considered when assessing the potential

impacts and risks to a national heritage place include:

gazettal instruments

plans of management (where available).

Gazettal instrument

Heritage values of a place include the place's natural and cultural environment, having

aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance, or other significance for current and

future generations of Australians. To be listed as national heritage values it must be

able to be shown that they reach the level of significance of ‘outstanding value to the

nation’ against listed criteria and that this must able to be established through a

comparative analysis. If a place is determined to be included in the National Heritage

List then the Environment Minister must by instrument published in the gazette:

the assessed place or part of the assessed place

the national heritage values of the assessed place, or that part of the assessed

place, that are specified in the instrument.

Plans of management

To ensure the ongoing protection of a national heritage place, a management plan

should be prepared that sets out how the heritage values of the site will be protected or

conserved. Plans need to be consistent with the National Heritage Management

Principles which are set out in the EPBC Regulations. Plans are required to be

reviewed every 5 years.

Where a national heritage place is in a state or territory, the Australian Government

must endeavour to ensure that a management plan is prepared and implemented in

cooperation with the relevant state or territory government. The Environment Minister is

responsible for preparing plans of management for national heritage places in

Commonwealth areas.

4.2.2 Protection of national heritage under the Program

The Queensland Government is committed to the outstanding value to the nation of

Queensland’s national heritage places is identified, protected, conserved, presented

and transmitted to future generations of Australians.

The Program provides for an assessment of impacts and risks of an activity on national

heritage place values, in accordance with the national heritage criteria.



The Program will address the impacts from activities under the Program, including

projects undertaking EIS processes under the SDPWO Act and the EP Act.

These activities have the potential to impact national heritage values through variety of

sources depending on the location and nature of the activity. An activity taken outside

the boundary of a national heritage place can potentially impact the place’s listed

values.

The potential impacts on a national heritage site are dependent on the values of that

place and the location and nature of the action. The summary of the sources of risk, the

potential impacts and the MNES that may be affected are outlined in Tables 3 and 4.

Assessment of activities under the Program

The Program describes the EIS process that will be undertaken for activities under the

Program. The Queensland Government’s assessment process will require proponents

to identify and demonstrate that any impacts on a national heritage property will be of

an acceptable level and that there be adequate opportunity for consultation on EIS

documentation.

To assist proponents to satisfactorily consider national heritage places in their

preparation of EIS documents, Queensland will develop MNES guidelines, in

conjunction with the Australian Government, that proponents will have regard to in

preparing a project proposal and EIS documents.


guide proponents to DOE’s Protected Matters Search Tool to determine if their

projects may be in, adjacent to or near a national heritage property

direct proponents to the relevant guidance documents including gazettal

instruments, plans of management and EPBC Act guidance documents

require a description of the national heritage values that could be impacted by

the proposed activity

require an analysis of the potential risks and impacts to these values

require identification of environmental management strategies




national heritage property.





The Queensland Government Program ensures that development approved under the

Program will not have an unacceptable impact on national heritage places.

When undertaking assessments, the Queensland Government will have regard to

relevant policy documents, guidelines, gazettal instruments and plans of management.


The Program will ensure an assessment of the proponent’s project proposal and EIS

documentation, including the appropriateness and acceptability of identified

environmental management arrangements. The proponent will have to demonstrate

they have applied the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy in considering and responding

to potential impacts to national heritage.







implement the proposed environmental management arrangements and any

conditions, including monitoring, reporting, adaptive management and offset

requirements.




4.2.3 Outcomes for national heritage under the Program

Regarding national heritage places, the Queensland Government commits to:

(1) not approving a project that proposes activities that will contravene a plan of

management for a national heritage property or proposes unacceptable impacts

to the national heritage values of a national heritage property.

(2) ensuring there are no unacceptable impacts to national heritage places resulting

from developments that undertake an EIS process under the Program.


The Program Report details other commitments that directly or indirectly supports the

protection of national heritage values including guidelines for consulting with

Indigenous people in relation to their cultural heritage and traditional use, ongoing

monitoring and reporting activities, and the LTSP and associated initiatives.

4.3 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The GBRMP is an MNES protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act from any activities

undertaken in the GBRMP; and any activities taken outside the GBRMP which is likely

to have a significant impact on the environment in the GBRMP.

The Australian Government is responsible for the management of the GBRMP,

established under the Marine Park Act 1975 within the GBR region. The GBRMP

extends over 2 300 kilometres along the Queensland coastline and covers

approximately 344 400 square kilometres. The GBRMP generally extends over

Queensland State coastal waters to the low-water mark, and, under the 1979 Offshore

Constitutional Settlement, vesting of title and powers over these coastal waters is

subject to the operation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975.


Queensland is responsible for the management of the GBR Coast Marine Park,

covering approximately 63 000 square kilometres, which is established under the MP

Act. This is contiguous with the GBRMP and covers the area between low and high

water marks and many waters within the limits of the State of Queensland. There are

around 980 islands and cays within the boundaries of the GBRMP. The majority of the

islands fall within the jurisdiction of Queensland and almost half of these are national

parks under the NC Act. There are around 70 islands that are owned by the Australian

Government and form part of the Marine Park.

The GBRMP environment includes marine waters, airspace above those waters,

seabed features and all marine biota within those areas. The marine environment also

includes social and cultural values, including recreational opportunities, amenity,

cultural heritage, conservation and scientific significance.

(a) Under the EPBC Act and the Program the ‘environment’ is defined as:

(b) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities

(c) natural and physical resources

(d) the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas

(e) heritage values of places

(f) the social, economic and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph

(a), (b), (c) or (d).

4.3.2 Protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park under the EPBC Act

Under the EPBC Act, when assessing impacts to the GBRMP, all elements of the

‘environment’ must be considered to the extent that they apply. It is important to note

that the definition of the ‘environment’ in section 528 of the EPBC Act is not narrow and

is not limited to elements of the natural environment. Also the role and interests of

Indigenous peoples in promoting the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of

natural resources and promoting the co-operative use of Indigenous peoples’

knowledge of biodiversity and Indigenous heritage are recognised in the assessment of

the environment. The environment of the GBRMP may be examined using the

definition in the EPBC Act.

Ecosystem is defined separately in section 528 of the EPBC Act as being a ‘dynamic

complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living

environment interacting as a functional unit.’

The definition of ‘environment’ encompasses both ecosystems as a whole and parts of

an ecosystem. Those parts of an ecosystem can include people and communities. As

such, the relationship between organisms and their environment may also fit into the

definition of environment. Factors such as dependence, interdependence or a

symbiotic relationship can point to an ecosystem, which would be included under this

part of the definition of ‘environment’.

Species form an important part of the GBRMP. Section 250 of the EPBC Act relates to

protection of certain marine species that occur naturally in a Commonwealth marine

area. This protection is in addition to, and separate from the protection of listed

threatened and migratory species under the EPBC Act.


In many circumstances, species will be listed as a marine species as well as a listed

migratory and/or threatened species. Cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) are

protected in the Commonwealth marine area under Part 13 of the EPBC Act.

For a list of marine species and cetaceans subject to this strategic assessment, see

Appendix 3.

The impacts on naturally occurring and physical resources can be considered. These

include impacts such as:

reduced biological diversity or change species composition on reefs, seamounts

or in other sensitive marine environments

altered water circulation patterns by modification of existing landforms or the

addition of artificial reefs or other large structures

substantially damaging or modify large areas of the seafloor or ocean habitat,

such as seagrass

releasing oil, fuel or other toxic substances into the marine environment in

sufficient quantity to kill larger marine animals or alter ecosystem processes.

Section 528 of the EPBC Act defines ‘place’ to include:

a location, area or region or a number of locations, areas or regions

a building or other structure, or group of buildings or other structures (which

may include equipment, furniture, fittings and articles associated or connected

with the building or structure, or a group of buildings or structures)

in relation to the protection, maintenance, preservation or improvement of a

place – the immediate surroundings of a thing in paragraph (a) or (b)

‘Heritage values of places’.

Heritage values include any element of a place’s natural and cultural environment that

has aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or other significance, for current and future

generations.

Elements to consider include significant buildings and structures, landscapes, sites,

routes, aesthetic qualities, surface and sub-surface archaeology, sacred sites,

traditions, significant plants, animals, ecological communities and geological

formations. Consider their potential significance to Indigenous and non-Indigenous

people. The sensitivity of heritage values will vary greatly.

Indigenous heritage value is that which is of significance to Indigenous persons in

accordance with their practices, observances, customs, traditions, beliefs or history. In

relation to Heritage, Indigenous peoples are recognised as the primary source of

information on the value of their heritage. The sensitivity and value of Indigenous

heritage are identified through consultation with the Indigenous people that are

potentially affected. Impacts on particular species of plants or animals or on elements

of the landscape may have a significant impact on Indigenous cultural heritage.

Impacts on Indigenous cultural heritage can also occur without physical disturbance to

a site.

The heritage values of a place are different to listed values for a world heritage

property and/or a national heritage property. Heritage values do not have to be listed to

be considered as part of the ‘environment’, but listed values may be. Heritage values of

a place are concerned with the surrounding natural and cultural environment of a


particular (non-listed) place. Heritage values may include intangible qualities such as

wilderness values, visual values and cultural values. The heritage values of a place are

matters of fact to be determined from the circumstances of the matter at hand.

For the marine environment it is necessary to consider the places identified on the

Commonwealth Heritage List, established under the EPBC Act. The Commonwealth,

comprises natural, Indigenous and historic heritage places which are either entirely

within a Commonwealth area, or outside the Australian jurisdiction and owned or

leased by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth Authority; and which the Australian

Environment Minister is satisfied have one or more Commonwealth Heritage values.

For a full list of Commonwealth Heritage places in the marine area subject to this

strategic assessment and the Program, see Appendix 3.

Another important heritage feature of the Commonwealth marine area is underwater

cultural values. Shipwrecks and associated relics are protected under the Historic

Shipwrecks Act 1976 (the Shipwreck Act). There are more than 1300 historic

shipwrecks in Queensland waters. The Shipwrecks Act protects all shipwrecks and

associated relics that are 75 years or older, regardless of whether their physical

location is known. Shipwrecks younger than 75 years old can be individually declared

protected.

The social, economic and cultural aspects of the ’environment’ as defined under

section 528 of the EPBC Act are factored into when considering impacts to the

environment. This includes impacts to local people and communities from any activity.

For example, impacts to human uses, such as recreational and tourism values would

also be considered under the Program where relevant.

Under the EPBC Act, an action should not be approved if it would result in

unacceptable impacts to the environment in the GBRMP.

Under the EPBC Act, a person must not take an action in the GBRMP or outside the

GBRMP, will have or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment without

an approval.


When assessing the impacts of an activity in the GBRMP, the assessment process

would identify any part of the environment that is likely to be affected by the action,

examine how the environment might be affected and provide adequate opportunity for

public consultation. Relevant documents that will be considered when assessing

whether a project is likely to have an impact on the marine environment, included but

are not limited to:

plans of management

recovery plans

threat abatement plans

conservation advices

wildlife conservation plans

gazettal instruments

bioregional plans.


Plans of management for the Great Barrier Reef

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 is the primary legislative instrument

relating to the GBRMP. Other Australian and Queensland Government legislation also

applies.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003 provides for a range of

ecologically sustainable recreational, commercial and research opportunities and for

the continuation of traditional activities. The entire GBRMP is covered by this zoning

plan which identifies where particular activities are permitted and where some are not

permitted. The zoning plan separates conflicting uses, with 33 per cent of the Marine

Park afforded marine national park status where fishing and collecting is not permitted.

In high use areas near Cairns and the Whitsunday Islands, special Plans of

Management are in place in addition to the underlying zoning plan. In addition, other

Special Management Areas have been created for particular types of protection, such

as the Dugong Protection Areas.

In most of the adjoining waters, the Queensland Government provides complementary

zoning in virtually all the GBRWHA.

4.3.3 Protection of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park under the Program

The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring that the OUV of the GBRMP,

as a world heritage property, is identified, protected, conserved, presented and

transmitted to future generations. The environmental, biodiversity and heritage values

of the GBRMP are protected and conserved for the long term, consistent with the

objects of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975.

The conservation values for the GBRMP are identified in zoning plans and other

management arrangements administered by the GBRMPA and these would provide

the most relevant documents to use in assessment of a project.

In addition to the detail provided in the GBRMPA’s strategic assessment documents

key components of the Commonwealth marine environment were discussed in Section

4.2 in the Queensland Government’s draft Strategic Assessment Report. This

discussion included identification of heritage values, ecological processes, important

habitats and distinctive species.


Impacts from development activities will be addressed by the Program. Activities have

the potential to impact the GBRMP through variety of sources depending on the

location and nature of the action.

The potential impacts on the GBRMP are dependent on the supporting and critical

components (e.g. a particular threatened or listed species), processes (for example

breeding activities) and services (e.g. provision of a key habitat) that are components

of the ‘environment’ of the area. The summary of the sources of risks, potential impacts

and MNES that may be affected is outlined in Tables 3 and 4.


Assessment of activities under the Program

The Queensland Government’s EIS processes will require proponents to identify and

demonstrate that any impacts on the Commonwealth marine environment will be of an

acceptable level.

The assessment and approval process outlined in the Queensland Government

Program requires the preparation of EIS documentation and adequate opportunity for

consultation.

To ensure the assessment reflects the Australian Government definition of ‘whole of

the environment’, Queensland will ensure the consideration of marine species and

Commonwealth Heritage.

To assist proponents to satisfactorily consider the commonwealth marine environment

in their preparation of EIS documents, Queensland will develop MNES guidelines, in

conjunction with the Australian Government, that proponents will have regard to in

preparing a project proposal and EIS documents.



projects may be in, adjacent to or near the Commonwealth marine environment

direct proponents to the relevant guidance documents including plans of

management and EPBC Act guidance documents

require proponents proposing activities that may potentially impact the

commonwealth marine environment to particularly consider the GBRMPA’s

zoning and management plans, as well as guidance or policy documents

regarding the marine environment

require a description of the marine environment, including listed marine species

and any listed commonwealth Heritage places that could be impacted by the

proposed activity

require an analysis of the potential risks and impacts to the environment





commonwealth marine environment.





In undertaking assessments, the Queensland Government will have regard to relevant

policy documents, guidelines and management plans made by DOE and the GBRMPA.

The Program will ensure a rigorous assessment of the proponent’s project proposal

and EIS documentation, including the appropriateness and acceptability of identified


they have used the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy in considering and responding to

potential impacts to the ecological character of Ramsar wetlands.













4.3.4 Outcomes for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park under the Program

Regarding the GBRMP, the Queensland Government commits to:

(1) not accepting an EIS that proposes activities that will contravene a plan of

management for the GBRMP or proposes unacceptable impacts to the

environment of the GBRMP

(2) ensuring there are no unacceptable or unsustainable impacts to the GBRMP

resulting from developments that undertake an EIS process under the Program.



protection of the GBRMP, including supporting the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan,

joint field management programs, ongoing monitoring and reporting activities, and the

LTSP and associated initiatives.

4.4 Commonwealth marine area

The Commonwealth marine area extends beyond the outer edge of Queensland

waters, generally some 3 nautical miles (or 5.5 kilometres) from the coast, to the

boundary of Australia’s exclusive economic zone, generally around 200 nautical miles

from shore.

4.4.1 Protection of a Commonwealth marine area under the EPBC Act

The Commonwealth marine environment is an MNES protected under Part 3 of the

EPBC Act from any activities undertaken in a Commonwealth marine area; and any

activities taken outside a Commonwealth marine area which is likely to have a

significant impact on the environment in a Commonwealth marine area.

The marine environment includes marine waters, airspace above those waters, seabed

features and all marine biota within those areas. The marine environment also includes

social and cultural values, including recreational opportunities, amenity, cultural

heritage, conservation and scientific significance.


Under section 528 of the EPBC Act and in the Program, the ‘environment’ is defined

as:

(a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities

(b) natural and physical resources

(c) the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas (d) heritage

values of places

(d) the social, economic and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph

(a), (b) or (c).

The conservation values of Commonwealth marine areas are designated in a

Bioregional Plan or other plans of management.


Activities that may have the following impacts on the Commonwealth marine area must be considered:

result in a known or potential pest species becoming established in the

Commonwealth marine area

modify, destroy, fragment, isolate or disturb an important or substantial area of

habitat such that an adverse impact on marine ecosystem functioning or

integrity in a Commonwealth marine area results

have a substantial adverse effect on a population of a marine species or

cetacean including its life cycle (e.g. breeding, feeding, migration behaviour, life

expectancy) and spatial distribution

result in a substantial change in air quality or water quality (including

temperature) which may adversely impact on biodiversity, ecological integrity

social amenity or human health

result in persistent organic chemicals, heavy metals, or other potentially harmful

chemicals accumulating in the marine environment such that biodiversity,

ecological integrity, social amenity or human health may be adversely affected

or

have a substantial adverse impact on heritage values of the Commonwealth

marine area, including damage or destruction of an historic shipwreck.


The jurisdictional and management boundaries in the marine area are complex, with

the GBRWHA and the GBRMP made up of both state waters and Commonwealth

marine areas. The GBRMPA’s strategic assessment of the GBR region provides a

thorough assessment of pressures, conditions and trends in the marine environment.

The Queensland Government acknowledges the GRMPA’s work and draws on its

strategic assessment report, zoning plans and management plans for the GBRMP for

the marine elements of the GBR coastal zone strategic assessment.


4.4.2 Outcomes for Commonwealth marine areas under the Program

Regarding the Commonwealth marine area, the Queensland Government commits to:


management for the Commonwealth marine area or proposes unacceptable

impacts to the Commonwealth marine environment

(2) ensuring there are no unacceptable or unsustainable impacts to the

Commonwealth marine area resulting from developments that undertake an EIS

process under the Program.



protection of the Commonwealth marine area, including supporting the Reef Water

Quality Protection Plan, joint field management programs, ongoing monitoring and

reporting activities and the LTSP and associated initiatives.


4.5 Listed threatened species

Listed threatened species are those species that are listed under the EPBC Act.

Actions that have a significant impact on four of the listing categories - ‘extinct in the

wild’, ‘critically endangered’, ‘endangered’, and ‘vulnerable’ - are prohibited without

approval. The definitions of these categories are provided in section 179 of the EPBC

Act as follows:

(2) A native species is eligible to be included in the extinct in the wild

category at a particular time if, at that time:

(a) it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a

naturalised population well outside its past range; or

(b) it has not been recorded in its known and/or expected habitat, at

appropriate seasons, anywhere in its past range, despite exhaustive

surveys over a time frame appropriate to its life cycle and form.

(3) A native species is eligible to be included in the critically endangered

category at a particular time if, at that time, it is facing an extremely high

risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as determined in

accordance with the prescribed criteria.

(4) A native species is eligible to be included in the endangered category at a

particular time if, at that time:

(a) it is not critically endangered; and

(b) it is facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future,

as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.

(5) A native species is eligible to be included in the vulnerable category at a

particular time if, at that time:

(a) it is not critically endangered or endangered; and

(b) it is facing a high risk of extinction in the wild in the medium-term

future, as determined in accordance with the prescribed criteria.

The Queensland Government’s draft Strategic Assessment Report discussed the listed

threatened species in Queensland and analysed the condition and trend of a number of

threatened species in the GBR coastal zone. The current and projected trends differ

between species. Where a decline in the condition of a species was noted it was

primarily due to clearing of habitat and other anthropogenic threats. It is also

acknowledged that habitat alone can only provide a guide for assessment and future

projections. For a list of threatened species subject to the GBR coastal zone strategic

assessment and the Program see Appendix 3.


4.5.1 Protection of listed threatened species under the EPBC Act

Under the EPBC Act, an action or class of actions should not be approved if it would be

inconsistent with:

Australia’s obligations under the (i) Biodiversity Convention; (ii) the Apia

Convention; (iii) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)

a recovery plan for the species or a threat abatement plan.

Assessment of an action must also have regard for approved conservation advice

available for a species or community.

Proponents will have regard to the significant impact criteria in EPBC Act Significant

Impact Guidelines 1.1 for critically endangered, endangered and vulnerable species

that may or are likely to be impacted by the activity, in the context of demonstrating

acceptable levels of impacts.

Whether the action/s would have an unacceptable impact is a function of the

significance of its potential impacts. Under the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines,

an action is likely to have a significant impact on a listed threatened species based on

its species listing category. Further information on the level of significant impact under

each species listings category is outlined below:

Extinct in the wild species

An action is likely to have a significant impact on extinct in the wild species if there is a

real chance or possibility that it will:

adversely affect a captive or propagated population or one recently

introduced/reintroduced to the wild or

interfere with the recovery of the species or its reintroduction into the wild.

Critically endangered or endangered species

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered

species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population

reduce the area of occupancy of the species

fragment an existing population into two or more populations

adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

disrupt the breeding cycle of a population

modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat

to the extent that the species is likely to decline

result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or

endangered species becoming established in the endangered or critically

endangered species’ habitat

introduce disease that may cause the species to decline or

interfere with the recovery of the species.


Vulnerable species

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real

chance or possibility that it will:

lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species

reduce the area of occupancy of an important population

fragment an existing important population into two or more populations

adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population

modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of

habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming

established in the vulnerable species’ habitat

introduce disease that may cause the species to decline or

interfere substantially with the recovery of the species.

‘Habitat critical to the survival of a species or ecological community’ refers to areas that

are necessary:

for activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting, or dispersal

for the long-term maintenance of the species or ecological community (including

the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or ecological

community, such as pollinators)

to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development or

for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological

community.

Such habitat may be, but is not limited to: habitat identified in a recovery plan for the

species or ecological community as habitat critical for that species or ecological

community; and/or habitat listed on the Register of Critical Habitat maintained by the

Minister under the EPBC Act.

A ‘population of a species’ is defined under the EPBC Act as an occurrence of the

species in a particular area. In relation to critically endangered, endangered or

vulnerable listed threatened species, occurrences include but are not limited to:

a geographically distinct regional population, or collection of local populations or

a population, or collection of local populations, that occurs within a particular

bioregion.

Environmental assessment

Environmental assessment under the EPBC Act requires analysis of the potential

impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative) to listed threatened species or their habitat

and adequate opportunity for consultation. Relevant documents that are considered

when assessing the potential impacts and risks to listed threatened species include:

recovery plans

threat abatement plans

conservation advice.


Recovery plans

The Australian Minister for the Environment may make or adopt and implement

recovery plans for threatened fauna, threatened flora (other than conservation

dependent species) and threatened ecological communities (TECs) listed under the

EPBC Act. Recovery plans set out the research and management actions necessary to

stop the decline of, and support the recovery of, listed threatened species or

threatened ecological communities. The aim of a recovery plan is to maximise the long

term survival in the wild of a listed threatened species or ecological community.

Recovery plans should state what must be done to protect and restore important

populations of listed threatened species and habitat, as well as how to manage and

reduce threatening processes. Recovery plans achieve this aim by providing a planned

and logical framework for key interest groups and responsible government agencies to

coordinate their work to improve the plight of listed threatened species and/or

ecological communities.

Threat abatement plans

The EPBC Act provides for the identification and listing of key threatening processes.

Key threatening processes threaten or may threaten the survival, abundance or

evolutionary development of a native species or ecological community. For example,

invasive species listed as key threatening processes are predation by the European

red fox, feral rabbits or unmanaged goats.

The assessment of a threatening process as a key threatening process is the first step

to addressing the impact of a particular threat under Australian Government law. The

Australian Minister for the Environment may decide whether to have a threat

abatement plan for a threatening process in the list of key threatening processes

established under the EPBC Act.

Threat abatement plans provide for the research, management, and any other actions

necessary to reduce the impact of a listed key threatening process on native species

and ecological communities. Implementing the plan should assist the long term survival

in the wild of affected native species or ecological communities. Threat abatement

plans contain objectives and actions which relate to mitigating or reversing the impacts

of a key threatening process.

Conservation advice

When a native species or ecological community is listed as threatened under the EPBC

Act, conservation advice is developed to assist its recovery. Conservation advice

provides guidance on immediate recovery and threat abatement activities that can be

undertaken to ensure the conservation of a newly listed species or ecological

community.

Conservation advice includes practical on-the-ground activities that can be

implemented by local communities, natural resource management groups or interested

individuals, such as landholders.

Conservation advice may also include broader management actions which can be

undertaken by organisations such as local councils, government agencies or non-

government organisations, to protect the listed threatened species or ecological

community on a regional level.


4.5.2 Protection of Listed Threatened Species under the Program

The Queensland Government is committed to the survival and conservation status of

listed threatened species and ecological communities being promoted and enhanced.

Through implementing a robust EIS process supported by a strong policy framework

the Queensland Government will ensure that urban, industrial, tourism, port or

aquaculture developments under the Program will not have an unacceptable or

unsustainable impact on listed threatened species.


The Program will address the impacts from activities under the Program including

those related to development for which an EIS is being prepared under the Program.

These activities have the potential to impact listed threatened species through variety

of sources depending on the location and nature of the action. Potential impacts on

listed threatened species include direct or indirect impacts to those species, or impacts

to species’ habitat. The summary of all the sources risks and impacts is outlined in

Tables 3 and 4.


The Queensland Government’s EIS processes will require proponents to identify and

demonstrate that any impacts on listed threatened species and ecological communities

will be of an acceptable level.

The EIS processes outlined in the Queensland Government Program requires the

preparation of documentation and adequate opportunity for consultation.

To assist proponents to satisfactorily consider listed threatened species and ecological

communities in their preparation of EIS documents, the Queensland Government will

direct proponents to the EPBC Act Referral Guidelines for the OUV of the GBRWHA

and work with the Australian Government to develop MNES guidelines that proponents

will have regard to when preparing a project proposal and EIS documents. The

guidelines will:


projects may be in, adjacent to or near environment that be used or habitat for

listed threatened species

direct proponents to the relevant guidance documents including recovery plans,

threat abatement plans or conservation advices and any other EPBC Act

guidance documents

require a description of the habitat for listed threatened species that could be

impacted by the proposed activity and the use of the environment by the listed

threatened species

require an analysis of the potential risks and impacts to this environment and

habitat






listed threatened species.





In undertaking assessments, the Queensland Government will have regard for relevant

policy documents, recovery plans, threat abatement plans, conservation advice and

DOE guidelines.





potential impacts to listed threatened species.












4.5.3 Outcomes for listed threatened species under the Program

Regarding listed threatened species, the Queensland Government commits to:

(1) not approving a project that is inconsistent with a recovery plan or threat

abatement plan for a listed threatened species or ecological community

(2) having regard to any approved conservation advice in relation to a listed

threatened species before approving a project

(3) not accepting a project that will result in unacceptable impacts to a listed

threatened species.



protection of listed threatened species, including prioritising actions to recover species,

working to achieve consistent national listing of threatened species, undertaking on-

the-ground actions that deliver long-term benefits for threatened species, joint field

management programs, ongoing monitoring and reporting activities, and the LTSP and

associated initiatives.

Case study 3—Listed threatened species: Residential development


4.5.4 Case study 3—Listed threatened species: Residential development






Purpose


ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on listed threatened species


operates to protect listed threatened species which is a controlling provision under the

EPBC Act (sections 18 and 18A). Note, a real assessment under this SDPWO Act

would fully consider all relevant MNES covered by the Program.




Program would protect a listed threatened species using residential development as an

example. Through the EIS process, the Coordinator-General considers all

environmental values affected by the project, with specific reference to MNES.

As discussed in Chapter 3.4 of this report, residential development activities generally

involve land clearance and earthworks to prepare the site, construction works and then

ongoing activities associated with use of the site. Ongoing activities such as increased

vehicle traffic have the potential to impact on threatened fauna through collisions, and

additional noise and light associated impacts. The operation of the residential area may

also impact on listed threatened species by introducing domestic pets which have the

potential to injure or displace these fauna.

The activities associated with a residential development project create the potential to

impact multiple MNES. These activities, associated risks and their impacts are

discussed in detail in Tables 3 and 4.

This case study outlines how matters of MNES would be considered for environmental

approvals under the SDPWO Act EIS process from the initial application by a

proponent through to the granting of development approvals, conditioning, monitoring,

reporting and auditing.

Scenario

A proponent is seeking approval for a 14-lot residential development proposed at

Mission Beach on freehold land adjacent to the coast. This development is within a

rural zone that contains rainforest habitats. The property is bounded by rural properties

to the south and west, a coastal esplanade reserve and beach front to the east, and a

residential development to the north. This project will require clearing of remnant

vegetation and subsequent works to construct roads, fencing, headworks and other

associated infrastructure for the development. In this case, the project has the potential



to have a significant impact on a listed threatened species—the endangered Southern

Cassowary (Casuarius casuarius johnsonii).

Potential impacts on this species include the clearing of habitat critical to cassowary

survival by decreasing the quality and availability of habitat to the species. Earthworks

and construction activities may cause further disturbance to the species associated

with noise and movement of machinery. Ongoing activities in the residential

development may increase pests, weeds and disease and disturbance through pet and

human traffic.


assessment process

At the application stage, the proponent must provide an IAS which describes the

proposal and discusses all of the potential environmental impacts of the project on both

the general environment and MNES.

The proponent would use the DOE’s Protected Matters Search Tool for identifying

potentially relevant MNES in the project area and assessing potential impacts.

The information provided in the IAS would provide an understanding of the potential

scale and nature of the project impacts on the cassowary.

The proponent would be required to prepare an IAS which provides a full description of

the proposed construction and operational activities, a description of the values of the

site, the nature and extent of likely impacts on listed threatened species and a

description of measures that will be implemented to avoid, reduce, manage or offset

any relevant impacts on listed threatened species.

The IAS identifies the project will result in impacts to the endangered cassowary

associated with clearing works during construction and consequential ongoing

disturbances associated with residential activity (e.g. noise and domestic pets).

Due to the potential significant environmental effects of the project on listed threatened

species, such as the cassowary, this type of project would be declared a coordinated

project for which an EIS is required and would be assessed under Part 4 of the

SDPWO Act.

The content of the IAS informs the preparation of the TOR for the EIS, thus there would

be specific reference to the cassowary as an MNES. The TOR for coordinated projects

will reflect the requirement to consider the values and impacts to EPBC Act listed

threatened species (where relevant) and other relevant MNES. The Coordinator-

General’s ‘coordinated project’ declaration will ensure that any project that is likely to

have significant impacts on a listed threatened species such as the cassowary, will be

assessed through the EIS process under the SDPWO Act.

The Queensland Government would not accept an IAS that does not provide adequate

information on the proposed activities and the potential impacts they may have on

listed threatened species.




decision

The proponent must prepare an EIS which addresses the requirements outlined in the

TOR provided by the Coordinator-General which would include specific and detailed

information on the cassowary, as an MNES.

The adequacy of the EIS in covering all matters required by the TOR is reviewed by the

Coordinator-General, state government advisory agencies, DOE, and the public,

including key stakeholders (through a public consultation process on the draft TOR).

The EIS would need to address the requirements of the TOR, the EIS must provide a

sufficient description of listed threatened species including the cassowary, such as a

description of the occurrence of this species within the project area and a description of

important habitat types, seasonality of the species and whether there are any critical

life stages such as foraging and breeding activities that are likely to be affected.


determine where the cassowary occurs in relation to their project, and any other MNES

that may be impacted by the project.

The EIS would need to provide a description of the residential development (including

all elements of the activity that are essential for informing the nature and scale of the

activity), the characteristics of existing environment, particularly habitat for listed

threatened species including cassowaries, and any other activities (proposed,

approved or already undertaken) impacting on the environment, and the level of impact

the project would have on the environment and the southern cassowary.

The EIS describes the level of impact of the project on listed threatened species while

also having regard for other activities in the area contributing to those impacts. The

project gives due consideration to the residual and cumulative impacts caused by the

project in the context of the existing environmental condition in the area.

The description includes sufficient information about the cassowary to inform the risk

assessment including the known and potential extent and condition of remaining

populations, life stages and associated susceptibility to impacts potentially associated

with the project.

The description of the activity, existing environment and description of other activities

impacting on the environment must be sufficient to inform the assessment and

demonstrate that there would not be any unacceptable impacts or risks on the southern

cassowary.

The considerations in defining acceptable impacts would include the EPBC Act

Significant Impact Guidelines in relation to listed threatened species, the EPBC Act

Policy Statement for the Endangered Southern Cassowary (Casuarius casuarius

johnsonii) Wet Tropics Population, the National Recovery plan for the Southern

Cassowary and relevant threat abatement plans (Threat Abatement Plan for Predation,

Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs and Threat

Abatement Plan for the Reduction in Impacts of Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia

and its Territories). These documents would assist the proponent to determine the

general characteristics of the site, the potential impacts and other threats.



The EIS must provide enough information to demonstrate that the proposal would not

be inconsistent with the above plans.



undertaken will require an assessment covering all seasons of a year. These ground-

truthing activities will ensure there is accurate, site-specific identification of the

environmental values of the area impacted by the project and the potential impacts on

those values from the activity being proposed.

The EIS must provide enough information to determine whether reasonable measures

as being proposed to avoid and mitigate impacts on the cassowary and whether

significant residual impacts on the cassowary are still likely to occur after avoidance

and mitigation.


advisory agencies, including but not limited to the DEHP and DAFF, would be invited to

make a submission on this EIS during the public consultation period. These agencies

would provide specialist advice on the potential impacts of the residential development

and the appropriateness and the likely effectiveness of identified mitigation measures

and where appropriate suggest possible offsets, monitoring and auditing requirements.

The proponent is required to give consideration to all comments made in the

consultation phase including those from advisory agencies and the public. The

proponent may alter the design of the project to address comments.

In this instance no further information would be required. However, if the Coordinator-

General is not satisfied that the EIS provides sufficient information to undertaken an

adequate evaluation of the project, additional information from the proponent would be

requested.

Where an EIS requires additional information, the Coordinator-General may seek

advice from advisory agencies on the adequacy of the additional information,

particularly in addressing matters raised in submissions on the EIS, including public

comment. Advisory agencies may also suggest conditions to ensure that adequate

mitigation strategies are implemented to minimise the impacts of the project to an

acceptable level for consideration during the preparation of the Coordinator-General's

report on the EIS. All conditions outlined by the Coordinator-General would be attached

to the Development Approvals sought for the project.

Environmental offsets

As this project is likely to have significant residual impacts on the cassowary after

avoidance and mitigation, the EIS would be required to include a draft offset strategy

proposal for the Coordinator-General’s consideration. The removal of essential habitat

for the cassowary caused by this residential development project would require an

offset strategy to ensure that there is no net loss of habitat for this species.

The offset strategy proposal would need to describe the offset and demonstrate how it

will provide an appropriate benefit to compensate for any residual impact on the

cassowary.



The Australian Government offsets policy and comments made by advisory agencies

would be considered when determining the adequacy of the offset proposal to

compensate for significant residual impacts to the Southern Cassowary.



listed threatened species, the process proceeds to the evaluation stage.


information on the environmental values and potential impacts, as well as appropriate

mitigation strategies (including offsets) to reduce impacts on listed threatened species

to an acceptable level.



The EIS process includes a public consultation process. Public comment can be

sought on the draft TOR and/or EIS, including additional information requested by the

Coordinator-General. Public consultation will be notified via various methods including

media release, newspaper advertisements, webpage update, public display at libraries,

letters to local, state and federal members, Queensland and Australian Government

ministers and relevant state advisory agencies. Under the SDPWO Act, statutory public

notices are required for each public consultation process to ensure the public is

formally notified of the opportunity to provide submissions on the EIS.



(e.g. appropriate selection of a location for discharging treated wastewater) and/or to

gain advice on other matters of interest or concern. Advisory agencies for this project

that may be involved in such meetings would include but not limited to for this project

include the DEHP, DNRM, DNRM, DNPRSR and the Wet Tropics Management

Authority.

Submissions on the EIS may include advice on the project's potential environmental

effects and whether the strategies proposed by the proponent would effectively

manage the project's impacts to an acceptable level.

The EIS would be finalised, taking into account the comments received during the

consultation period. The Coordinator-General will not accept a final TOR or EIS that

has not addressed the comments received during any public consultation process

undertaken.

4. Determination of project acceptability – no unacceptable impacts on MNES


The Coordinator-General’s evaluation report would make an assessment on whether

the proponent has adequately avoided and mitigated all impacts including those on

listed threatened species, specifically the cassowary and evaluates whether the offset

strategy proposed is appropriate to offset the significant residual impact on the

cassowary.



As the Coordinator-General considers whether the information provided is sufficient

and may recommend the project proceed, subject to conditions. The conditions would

include the implementation of an offset strategy. The Coordinator-General will not

recommend a project proceed if it will result in unacceptable impacts to the cassowary;

or is inconsistent with a threat abatement plan or recovery plan relating to a listed

threatened species.

Additionally, the Coordinator-General will consider the conservation advice in regards

to Threatened Ecological Communities (TECs).


The Coordinator-General's report is not an approval in itself. Once completed, it is sent

to the Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) assessment manager, for

consideration regarding the required development approval applications through the

SP Act.

Coordinated project proponents are still required to obtain all other development

approvals and licences from local authorities (e.g. building approvals and material

change of use approvals) and state government agencies (e.g. an environmental

authority).

The conditions to protect listed threatened species outlined in the Coordinator-

General's report will gain legal effect once they are attached to a development approval

given under other specific legislation (e.g. SP Act).


granted for the proposed project. The assessment manager has the authority to refuse

the project, even if the Coordinator-General’s evaluation report has recommended that

the project proceed.

If development approvals are granted, the assessment manager must attach the

Coordinator-General’s conditions in regards to listed threatened species to the

approval, where appropriate.

The assessment manager may impose further conditions on the development approval

to ensure the impacts on listed threatened species are mitigated. These conditions

cannot be inconsistent with the conditions stated in the Coordinator-General’s report.

Conditions may be used to resolve information gaps or direct the proponent to

undertake further work before development approvals can be given.

In this case the residential development project would require development approvals

including, but not limited to, those for:

reconfiguring a lot, or operational work associated with reconfiguring a lot within

a coastal management area

operational work resulting in clearing of native vegetation (Native Vegetation

Clearing Code)

operational work that is high impact earthworks in a GBR wetland protection

area (Coastal Protection Code).

In addition, approval to destroy ‘protected plants’ under the NC Act would also be

required.



The State Development Assessment Provisions (SDAP) set out the code requirements

for development assessed by the State. The most relevant codes for this proposal are

the Native Vegetation Clearing Code and the Coastal Protection Code.

The purpose of the Native Vegetation Clearing Code is to regulate the clearing of

native vegetation within Queensland in order to conserve remnant vegetation, prevent

loss of biodiversity and maintain ecological processes. A performance outcome

includes that there will be no clearing of vegetation as a result of the material change of

use or reconfiguration of a lot.

The purpose of the Coastal Protection Code is to ensure tidal works and development

in the coastal management district is managed to: protect and conserve environmental,

social and economic coastal resources; and enhance the resilience of coastal

communities to coastal hazards. Performance outcomes include residential

development to be located outside of high coastal hazard areas, maintain vegetation

on coastal landforms, and minimise the need for erosion control structures.

The proposed offset strategy would require endorsement of DEHP to ensure offsets for

impacts to listed threatened species such as the cassowary are appropriate and

adequate.

The Coordinator-General will not recommend that a project proceeds unless the

assessment manager is satisfied that adequate conditions can be enforced to reduce

environmental impacts on listed threatened species, for example the cassowary, to an

acceptable level.

The Coordinator-General will not recommend that a project proceeds if it inconsistent

with a threat abatement plan or recovery plan for a listed threatened species; or is

inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the Biodiversity Convention, the Apia

Convention, or CITES.

The Queensland Government will ensure the EIS process and conditions applied to

development approvals will ensure no unacceptable impacts to listed threatened

species will result from the project.


Possible outcome-focused conditions that could be applied to protect listed threatened

species from impacts of residential development include, but are not limited to:

Offset plan condition. The proponent must prepare a site based offset plan to

address significant residual impacts on listed threatened species. The offset

plan must be approved by the Coordinator-General and DEHP and be

consistent with the EPBC Act environmental offsets policy.

Listed threatened species condition. Prior to the commencement of construction

activities, a suitably qualified person must develop impact mitigation and

management measures that maximise the ongoing protection and long-term

conservation of listed threatened species known or likely to occur within the

project area. Mitigation and management measures must be supported by a

program of monitoring and reporting to facilitate adaptive management, be

consistent with the provisions of the NC Act and be implemented for all stages

of the project construction and operations.



Water resources conditions. The Water Resources (Wet Tropics) Plan 2013

outcomes (including environmental flow objectives and water allocation security

objectives) must be maintained or achieved. Watercourse diversions must be

undertaken in accordance with relevant DNRM guidelines.

Water resources monitoring condition. A water resources monitoring program

must be prepared by a suitably qualified person to measure and report on any

direct or indirect impacts on water resources attributable to the project activities.

Contingency plan condition. A risk-based contingency plan must be prepared by

a suitably qualified person that details the response measures, and their

associated timeframes, that would be undertaken by the proponent in the event

that impacts on water resources attributable to the project activities exceed

predictions.



adverse impacts to the functioning and biodiversity of ecosystems.


clearing of native vegetation associated with the project.

A Property Vegetation Management Plan (PVMP) which is consistent with section 11 of

the Vegetation Management Regulation 2012 must be implemented on the site.






legally enforceable






qualified person/s to conduct a third-party audit of compliance with imposed


review.

The Coordinator-General will enforce compliance with all conditions imposed on a

coordinated project approved under the SDPWO Act and utilise the auditing process to

ensure that the appropriate monitoring activity is undertaken.

Compliance with ‘stated conditions’ in the Coordinator-General’s report is the

responsibility of the administering authority, or the nominated responsible State

agency.


4.6 Threatened Ecological Communities

Listed TECs are those ecological communities that are listed under the EPBC Act by

instrument of Government Gazette under one of the following categories:

critically endangered

endangered

vulnerable.

Ecological communities that are considered matters protected under Part 3 of the

EPBC Act (under section 18 and 18A) are those that are listed as ‘critically

endangered’, or ‘endangered’. The definitions of these threatened ecological

communities categories are provided in section 182 of the EPBC Act as follows:

‘Critically endangered’ – An ecological community that is facing an extremely

high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as determined in

accordance with the prescribed criteria in Division 7.1 of the EPBC Regulations.

‘Endangered’ – an ecological community that is not critically endangered and is

facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild in the near future as determined

in accordance with the prescribed criteria in Division 7.1 of the EPBC

Regulations.

There are currently two ‘critically endangered’ ecological communities that have been

identified as being potentially present along the Queensland coast. These are:

Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia

Lowland Subtropical Rainforest on Basalt Alluvium in North-East New South

Wales and South East Queensland.

As well as five listed ‘endangered’ ecological communities:

Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant)

Broad leaf tea-tree (Melaleuca viridiflora) woodlands in high rainfall coastal

north Queensland

Coolibah - Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and the

Brigalow Belt South Bioregions

Weeping Myall Woodlands

Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and

Nandewar Bioregions.

The impacts to these communities would be considered under the Program.


4.6.1 Protection of Threatened Ecological Communities under the EPBC Act

Ecological communities are unique and naturally occurring groups of plants and

animals. Their presence can be determined by survey.

Habitat critical to the survival of a species or ecological community refers to areas that

are necessary:

for activities such as foraging, breeding, roosting, or dispersal

for the long-term maintenance of the species or ecological community (including

the maintenance of species essential to the survival of the species or ecological

community, such as pollinators)

to maintain genetic diversity and long term evolutionary development, or

for the reintroduction of populations or recovery of the species or ecological

community.

Such habitat may be, but is not limited to: habitat identified in a recovery plan for the

species or ecological community as habitat critical for that species or ecological

community; and/or habitat listed on the Register of Critical Habitat maintained by the

Minister under the EPBC Act.


Whether the action/s would have an unacceptable impact depends on the significance

of its potential impacts. Under the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines, an action is

likely to have a significant impact on a critically endangered or endangered ecological

community if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

reduce the extent of an ecological community

fragment or increase fragmentation of an ecological community, for example by

clearing vegetation for roads or transmission lines

adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of an ecological community

modify or destroy abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients, or soil)

necessary for an ecological community’s survival, including reduction of

groundwater levels, or substantial alteration of surface water drainage patterns

cause a substantial change in the species composition of an occurrence of an

ecological community, including causing a decline or loss of functionally

important species, for example through regular burning or flora or fauna

harvesting

cause a substantial reduction in the quality or integrity of an occurrence of an

ecological community, including, but not limited to:

assisting invasive species, that are harmful to the listed ecological

community, to become established

causing regular mobilisation of fertilisers, herbicides or other chemicals or

pollutants into the ecological community which kill or inhibit the growth of

species in the ecological community or

interfere with the recovery of an ecological community.



inconsistent with:

Australia’s obligations under the (i) Biodiversity Convention; (ii) the Apia

Convention; (iii) Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of

Wild Fauna and Flora

a recovery plan for the community or a threat abatement plan.

Assessment of an action must also have regard to any approved conservation advice

for the community.

4.6.2 Protection of Threatened Ecological Communities under the Program

The Program is committed to the survival and conservation status of listed ecological

communities being promoted and enhanced through the conservation of critical

habitats and other relevant measures contained in relevant plans or advices.

Through implementing a robust EIS process supported by a strong policy framework,

the Queensland Government will ensure there will be no unacceptable impacts

resulting from development activities to listed TEC.


Impacts from development activities will be addressed by the Program. The activities

have the potential to impact listed ecological communities through a variety of sources

depending on the location and nature of the action.

Potential impacts on listed ecological communities include direct or indirect impacts to

those elements that make up the ecological community or habitat for the ecological

community. The summary of the sources of risks, potential impacts and the MNES that

may be impacted are outlined in Tables 3 and 4.


The Program describes the EIS processes that will be undertaken for activities under

the Program.

The proposed new MNES guidelines will assist proponents to satisfactorily consider

threatened ecological communities when preparing a project proposal and EIS

documents. The MNES guidelines will:

make reference to consideration of the listing category and protection of the

listed ecological community

direct proponents to DOE’s Protected Matters Search Tool to determine if their

projects may be in, adjacent to or near an ecological community

direct proponents to the relevant guidance documents to be considered by

titleholders in preparing EIS documentation such as recovery plans, threat

abatement plans, conservation advice and EPBC Act guidance documents

require an analysis of the potential risks and impacts to this environment and

habitat





provide examples of what could be considered an unacceptable impact on an

ecological community.





In undertaking assessments, the Queensland Government will have regard for relevant

policy documents, recovery plans, threat abatement plans, conservation advice and

DOE guidelines.





potential impacts to listed threatened species.












4.6.3 Outcomes for Threatened Ecological Communities under the Program

Regarding listed threatened ecological communities, the Queensland Government

commits to:

(1) not approving a project that proposes activities that will result in unacceptable

impacts to an ecological community

(2) not approving an activity that is inconsistent with a recovery plan or threat

abatement plan for an ecological community

(3) having regard to any approved conservation advice in relation to an ecological

community before approving a project

(4) not accepting a project that will result in unacceptable or unsustainable impacts

to a listed threatened ecological community.



protection of threatened ecological communities, including the Queensland Wetlands

and Wet Tropics programs, joint field management programs, ongoing monitoring and

reporting activities, and the LTSP and associated initiatives.

Case study 4—Listed threatened ecological communities: Industrial development


4.6.4 Case study 4—Listed threatened ecological communities: Industrial development






Purpose


ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on listed threatened ecological communities

(TECs).


operates to protect TEC, which are a part of the listed threatened species and

communities EPBC Act controlling provision (sub-sections 18 and 18A). Note, a real

assessment under this SDPWO Act would fully consider all relevant MNES covered by

the Program.

This case study specifically refers to a hypothetical proposal for a hydroelectric power

station to show how the Program, in particular the EIS process under the SDPWO Act,

would be applied to protect listed threatened species and TEC from impacts of

development.




Program would protect listed TEC using an industrial development as an example.

Through the EIS process the Coordinator-General considers all environmental values

affected by the project with specific reference to MNES.

As discussed in Chapter 3 of this report, industrial development activities generally

involve land clearance and earthworks to prepare the site, construction works and then

ongoing activities such as maintenance and use of the site. Construction and

operational activities associated with an industrial development can generate a range

of emissions (air, noise and water) which have the potential to impact on the

environment.

The activities associated with an industrial development project have the potential to

impact multiple MNES. These activities, associated risks and their impacts are

discussed in detail in Tables 3 and 4.

This case study outlines how matters of MNES would be considered under the

environmental approvals process under the SDPWO Act from the initial application by

a proponent through the EIS process to the granting of the development approvals as

well as conditioning, monitoring, reporting and auditing.

Scenario

A proponent is seeking approval for a hydroelectric power station in the Wet Tropics.

The proposal is for a series of hydro-electric generators to be installed immediately



downstream of an existing dam. The proposed development is in an area that contains

the endangered broad leaf tea tree (Melaleuca viridiflora) woodlands in high rainfall

coastal north Queensland (tea tree TEC).

The project has a range of potential impacts, including the potential removal of the tea

tree TEC, reducing the area of occupancy and modifying the quality of the

environment. Additionally, because the activity may impact on flow regimes, this project

may impact on the duration of inundation (flooding) events that are important to the

lifecycle of this ecological community. Thus, the activity has the potential to have a

significant impact on the protected matter—listed ecological community (endangered).


assessment process

At the application stage, the proponent must provide an IAS which describes the

proposal and discusses all potential environmental impacts of the project on both the

general environment and MNES.

The proponent would use DOE’s Protected Matters Search Tool to identify potentially

relevant MNES in the project area and assessing potential impacts.

The information provided in the IAS would provide an understanding of the potential

scale and nature of the project impacts including impacts on MNES.

The proponent would be required to prepare an IAS which provides a full description of

the proposed construction and operational activities, a description of the values of the

site, the nature and extent of likely impacts on listed threatened species and a

description of measures that will be implemented to avoid, mitigate or offset any

relevant impacts on listed threatened species.

The IAS identifies the project will result in the removal and degradation of areas of the

endangered tea tree TEC in high rainfall coastal north Queensland. No other TEC is

identified in the project site or in areas that may be indirectly affected by the project.

Due to the potential significant environmental effects of the project, including on the tea

tree TEC, the Coordinator-General would declare this a ‘coordinated project’ for which

an EIS is required, under Part 4 of the SDPWO Act.


be specific reference to the endangered broad leaf tea tree woodlands as an MNES.


be specific reference to the tea tree TEC. The TOR for coordinated projects will reflect

the requirement to consider the values and impacts to nationally listed TEC (where

relevant) and other relevant MNES.

The Coordinator-General’s ‘coordinated project’ declaration will ensure that an

industrial development activity with the potential to cause significant environmental

impacts on MNES such as a threatened ecological community (e.g. tea tree TEC),

would be assessed through an EIS process under the SDPWO Act.

The Queensland Government would not accept an IAS that does not provide adequate

information on the proposed activities and the potential impacts it may have on listed

ecological communities.




decision

The proponent must prepare an EIS which addresses the requirements outlined in the

TOR provided by the Coordinator-General which would include specific and detailed

information on the tea tree TEC, as an MNES.

The adequacy of the EIS in covering all matters required by the TOR is reviewed by the

Coordinator-General, state government advisory agencies, DOE, and the public,

including key stakeholders (through a public consultation process on the draft TOR).

The EIS would need to provide a description of the industrial development activity, in

this case the hydroelectric power station, including all elements of the station and

generators that are essential for informing the nature and scale of the activity. It would

also need to describe the characteristics of the potentially impacted area with specific

reference to the tea tree TEC, and any other activities in the location (proposed,

approved or already undertaken) impacting on the immediate environment or

downstream which may affect threatened ecological communities.

The description must also include sufficient information about the tea tree TEC to

inform a risk assessment, including the known and potential extent and condition of

remaining community, life stages and associated susceptibility to impacts potentially

associated with the project (e.g. altered duration of inundation events).

To find this information, the proponent would be directed to the MNES guidelines

(Commitment 6) which will provide guidance on how threatened ecological

communities will need to be addressed to adequately meet EPBC Act requirements.

The proponent would also be directed to the DEHP website which contains information

on ecosystems and habitats.


determine where the tea tree TEC occurs in relation to their project, and any other

MNES that may be impacted by the project.

The proponent would need to consider the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines (for

threatened ecological communities), relevant threat abatement plans (Threat

abatement plan for disease in natural ecosystems caused by Phytophthora cinnamomi)

and conservation advices (Approved Conservation Advice for the Broad Leaf Tea-tree

(Melaleuca viridiflora) Woodlands in High Rainfall Coastal North Queensland). These

documents would assist the proponent to determine the general characteristics of the

site, the potential impacts and other threats.

The EIS provides enough information to demonstrate that the proposal would not be

inconsistent with the above plans.



undertaken will require an assessment covering all seasons of a year. These ground-

truthing activities will ensure there is accurate, site-specific identification of the

environmental values of the area impacted by the project and the potential impacts on

those values from the activity being proposed.



The EIS describes the level of impact of the project on TEC, while also having regard

to other activities in the area contributing to those impacts. The EIS gives due

consideration to the residual and cumulative impacts caused by the project in the

context of the existing environmental condition in the area.

The description of the activity, its potential impacts on the tea tree TEC and the

description of other activities impacting on the TEC must be sufficient to inform the

assessment and demonstrate that there would not be any unacceptable impacts or

risks to the tea tree TEC (and other MNES and OUV).

The EIS must provide enough information to enable the Coordinator-General to

determine whether reasonable measures are being proposed to avoid and mitigate

impacts on TEC, including the tea tree TEC, and whether significant residual impacts

are still likely to occur after avoidance and mitigation. Sufficient detail must also be

provided on the timing and the expected effectiveness of the mitigation measures.


advisory agencies, including but not limited to the DEHP and DAFF, would be invited to

make a submission on this EIS during the public consultation period. These agencies

would provide specialist advice on the potential impacts of the industrial development

and the appropriateness and the likely effectiveness of identified mitigation measures

and where appropriate suggest possible offsets, monitoring and auditing requirements.

The proponent is required to give consideration to all comments made in the

consultation phase including those from advisory agencies and the public. The

proponent may alter the design of the project to reduce the environmental impact in

response to submissions.

In this case no further information would be required, however, if the Coordinator-

General is not satisfied that the EIS provides sufficient information on environmental

impacts, specifically the impacts on the tee tree TEC in this case, to undertake an

adequate evaluation of the project, additional information from the proponent would be

requested.

Where an EIS requires additional information, the Coordinator-General may seek

advice from advisory agencies on the adequacy of the additional information,

particularly in addressing matters raised in submissions on the EIS, including public

comment. Advisory agencies may also suggest conditions to ensure that adequate

mitigation strategies are implemented to minimise the impacts of the project to an

acceptable level for consideration during the preparation of the Coordinator-General's

report on the EIS. All conditions outlined by the Coordinator-General would be attached

to the development approvals sought for construction of the project.

Environmental offsets

As this project involves the removal of tea tree TEC with considerable significant

residual impacts, the EIS would be required to include a draft offset strategy proposal

for the Coordinator-General’s consideration.

The offset strategy proposal would need to describe the offset for the impacts to the tea

tree TEC and demonstrate how it will provide an appropriate benefit to compensate for

the residual impacts on the tea tree TEC.



The Australian Government offsets policy and comments made by advisory agencies

would be considered when determining the adequacy of the offset proposal to

compensate for residual significant impacts to the tea tree TEC.



TECs, the process proceeds to the evaluation stage.


information on the environmental values, potential impacts, and appropriate mitigation

strategies (including offsets) to reduce impacts, on TECs (e.g. tea tree TEC).



The EIS process includes a public consultation process. Public comment can be

sought on the draft TOR and/or EIS, including additional information requested by the

Coordinator-General. Public consultation must be notified via various methods. This

would include media releases, newspaper advertisements, webpage updates, public

displays at libraries and letters to local, state and federal members, Queensland and

Australian Ministers and relevant state advisory agencies. Under the SDPWO Act,

statutory public notices are required for each public consultation process to ensure the

public is formally notified of the opportunity to provide submissions on the EIS.



(e.g. management measures to ensure environmental flows are maintained) and/or to

gain advice on other matters of interest or concern. Advisory agencies for this project

that may be involved in such meetings would include but not limited to DNRM, DEHP

and DAFF. Submissions on the EIS from advisory agencies may include advice on: the

project's potential environmental impacts, including on TEC; whether the EIS

adequately addresses the TOR; and whether the strategies proposed by the proponent

would effectively manage the project's impacts to an acceptable level.

The EIS would be finalised, taking into account the comments received during the

consultation period.

The Coordinator-General will not accept a final TOR or EIS that has not addressed the

comments received during the public consultation process undertaken.

4. Determination of project acceptability - no unacceptable impacts on MNES


The Coordinator-General’s report would determine that the proponent has adequately

avoided and mitigated all impacts, including those on the tea tree TEC, and where

significant residual or cumulative impacts on the tea tree TEC are likely, after

avoidance and mitigation strategies have been implemented that an offset strategy be

included.

The Coordinator-General ensures through the conditions outlined in the report, that

there will not be unacceptable impacts on the tea tree TEC and its associated values

(e.g. environmental flows are met to maintain a hydrological regime required for the

survival of the tea tree TEC).



As the Coordinator-General considers the information provided is sufficient and may

recommend that the project proceed, subject to conditions. The conditions would

include the implementation of an offset strategy.

The Coordinator-General will not recommend that a project proceeds if it will result in

unacceptable impacts to threatened ecological communities, including the tea tree

TEC; or if it is inconsistent with a threat abatement plan or recovery plan relating to

TEC, for example the tea tree TEC.

Additionally, the Coordinator-General will consider the conservation advice provided in

regard to TECs.


The Coordinator-General's report is not an approval in itself. Once completed, it is sent

to the IDAS assessment manager as supporting information, for consideration

regarding the required development approval applications through the SP Act.

Coordinated Project proponents are still required to obtain all other development

approvals and licences from local authorities (e.g. building approvals and material

change of use approvals) and state government agencies (e.g. an environmental

authority).

The conditions to protect TEC outlined in the Coordinator-General's report will gain

legal effect once they are attached to a development approval given under other

specific legislation (e.g. SP Act).


granted for the proposed project. The assessment manager has the authority to refuse

the project, even if the Coordinator-General’s evaluation report has recommended that

the project proceed.

If development approvals are granted, the assessment manager must attach the

Coordinator-General’s conditions in regards to TEC to the approval, where appropriate.

The assessment manager may impose further conditions on the development

approvals to ensure the impacts on the tea tree TEC are mitigated. These conditions

cannot be inconsistent with the conditions stated in the Coordinator-General’s report.

Conditions may be used to resolve information gaps or direct the proponent to

undertake further work before development approvals can be given.

In this case, the industrial development project would require development approvals

including but not limited to:

material change of use of premises, reconfiguring a lot, operational works

involving vegetation clearing (Native Vegetation Clearing Code) and building,

plumbing and drainage work

operational works that involves taking or interfering with water from a

watercourse, lake or spring, or from a dam constructed on a watercourse or lake

(Water Resources Code)

relevant environmentally relevant activities under the EP Act associated with the

project (ERA code).



The proposed offset strategy would also require endorsement of DEHP to ensure

offsets for impacts to TEC are appropriate and adequate.


Possible outcome-focused conditions that could be applied to protect TEC from

impacts of industrial development may include, but are not limited to:

Offset plan condition. The proponent must prepare a site based offset plan to

address significant residual impacts on TECs. The offset plan must be approved

by the Coordinator-General and DEHP and be consistent with the EPBC Act

environmental offsets policy and implemented within two years of

commencement of construction, or as directed by the Coordinator-General.

TECs’ condition. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, a suitably

qualified person must develop impact mitigation and management measures that

maximise the ongoing protection and long-term conservation of TEC known or

likely to occur within the project area. Mitigation and management measures

must be supported by a program of monitoring and reporting to facilitate adaptive

management, be consistent with the provisions of the NC Act and be

implemented for all stages of the project construction and operations.

Water resources conditions. The Water Resources (Wet Tropics) Plan 2013

outcomes (including environmental flow objectives and water allocation security

objectives) must be maintained or achieved. Watercourse diversions must be

undertaken in accordance with relevant DNRM guidelines.

Water resources monitoring condition. A water resources monitoring program

must be prepared by a suitably qualified person to measure and report on any

direct or indirect impacts on water resources attributable to the project activities.

Contingency plan condition. A risk-based contingency plan must be prepared by

a suitably qualified person that details the response measures, and their

associated timeframes, that would be undertaken by the proponent in the event

that impacts on water resources attributable to the project activities exceed

predictions.



adverse impacts to the functioning and biodiversity of ecosystems


the clearing of native vegetation associated with the project.

A PVMP which is consistent with section 11 of the Vegetation Management Regulation

2012 must be implemented on the site.








legally enforceable






qualified person/s to conduct a third party audit of compliance with imposed


review.

The Coordinator-General will enforce compliance with all conditions imposed on a

coordinated project approved under the SDPWO Act and utilise the auditing process to

ensure that the appropriate monitoring activity is undertaken.

Compliance with ‘stated conditions’ in the Coordinator-General’s report is the

responsibility of the administering authority, or the nominated responsible State

agency.


4.7 Listed migratory species

Listed migratory species protected under the EPBC Act pass through or over Australian

waters during their annual migrations. Examples of listed migratory species are

shorebirds (many of which breed in the northern hemisphere), sea birds (e.g.

albatrosses and petrels), mammals (e.g. whales) and reptiles (e.g. sea turtles).

The list of migratory species established under section 209 of the EPBC Act comprises:

migratory species which are native to Australia and are included in the

appendices to the Bonn Convention (Convention on the Conservation of

Migratory Species of Wild Animals Appendices I and II)

migratory species included in annexes established under the Japan-Australia

Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and the China-Australia Migratory Bird

Agreement (CAMBA)

native, migratory species identified in a list established under, or an instrument

made under, an international agreement approved by the Minister, such as the

Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA).

The Queensland Government’s draft Strategic Assessment Report and the GBRMPA’s

strategic assessment reports also discussed listed migratory species, including values,

condition and trend. For a list of migratory species subject to this strategic assessment

and the Program, see Appendix 3.

4.7.1 Protection of migratory species under the EPBC Act


inconsistent with:

the Bonn Convention

CAMBA

JAMBA

an international agreement approved under section 209(4) of the EPBC Act.

When assessing the impacts of an activity on a listed migratory species, the EPBC Act

requires a description of the environment that must identify any habitat for listed

migratory species that is likely to be affected by the proposed activity and the use of

the environment by listed migratory species (e.g. including information such as

Biological Important Areas identified in the National Conservation Values Atlas).

Proponents should also have regard to the significant impact criteria for listed migratory

species in the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines in determining acceptable

levels.

An area of ‘important habitat’ for a listed migratory species is:

(a) habitat utilised by a migratory species occasionally or periodically within a

region that supports an ecologically significant proportion of the population of

the species

(b) habitat that is of critical importance to the species at particular life-cycle

stages


(c) habitat utilised by a migratory species which is at the limit of the species

range

(d) habitat within an area where the species is declining.

Whether an activity would have an unacceptable impact is a function of the significance

of its potential impacts. Under the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, an

action is likely to have a significant impact on listed migratory species if there is a real

chance or possibility that it will result in:

substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering

nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of

important habitat for a listed migratory species

result in an invasive species that is harmful to the listed migratory species

becoming established in an area of important habitat for the listed migratory

species

seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour)

of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a listed migratory

species.

The EPBC Act requires analysis of the potential impacts (direct, indirect and

cumulative) to listed migratory species or their habitat and adequate opportunity for

consultation. Relevant documents that should be considered when assessing the

potential impacts are:

migratory species when also referred to as listed threatened species

wildlife conservation plans

Wildlife conservation plans

The Minister may make a wildlife conservation plan for the purposes of the protection,

conservation and management of the following:

(a) a listed migratory species that occurs in Australia or an external territory

(b) a listed marine species that occurs in Australia or an external territory

(c) a species of cetacean that occurs in the Australian Whale Sanctuary

(d) a conservation dependent species.

A wildlife conservation plan must provide for the research and management actions

necessary to support survival of the listed migratory species, marine species, species

of cetacean or conservation dependent species concerned. Plans may cover one or

more species.

4.7.2 Protection of migratory species under the Program

The Program will endeavour to ensure that the survival and conservation status of

listed migratory species will be promoted and enhanced.

Potential impacts of activities impacts

The Program will address the impacts from activities under the Program, including

projects undertaking EIS assessment processes under the SDPWO Act and the EP

Act.


These activities have the potential to impact listed migratory species through variety of

sources depending on the location and nature of the action. Potential impacts on listed

migratory species include direct or indirect impacts to those species, or impacts to

species’ habitat.


The Program describes the EIS process that will be undertaken for activities under the

Program.

The assessment and approval process outlined in the Program requires the

preparation of EIS documentation and adequate opportunity for consultation.

To assist proponents to satisfactorily consider listed migratory species in their

preparation of EIS documents, Queensland will work with the Australian Government to

develop MNES guidelines that proponents will have regard for in preparing a project

proposal and EIS documents. The guidelines will:


projects may be in, adjacent to or near habitat for listed migratory species

direct proponents to the relevant guidance documents including recovery plans,

conservation advices, plans of management and EPBC Act guidance

documents

require a description of the listed migratory species that could be impacted by

the proposed activity

require an analysis of the potential risks and impacts to those species




provide examples of what could be considered an unacceptable impact on listed

migratory species.





In undertaking assessments, Queensland will have regard to relevant policy documents

and guidelines.





potential impacts to listed migratory species.













4.7.3 Outcomes for listed migratory species under the Program

Regarding listed migratory species, the Queensland Government commits to:

(1) not approving a project that proposes activities that are inconsistent with above

mentioned agreements and any relevant Recovery Plans, Conservation Advices

or other EPBC Act requirements

(2) not approving any project that will result in unacceptable impacts to a listed

migratory species or an area of important habitat for a listed migratory species.



protection of listed migratory species, including the Queensland Wetlands and Wet

Tropics programs, joint field management programs, ongoing monitoring and reporting

activities, and the LTSP and associated initiatives.

Case study 5—Listed migratory species and ecological communities: Mining activity


4.7.4 Case study 5—Listed migratory species and ecological communities: Mining activity


proposed project. It has been written to show how the EIS process of the EP Act can

be used to manage impacts of future projects on MNES. The scenario presented in the

case study is assumed to be of a scale that warrants declaration as a coordinated

project under the EP Act.

Purpose


ensure there are no unacceptable impacts on listed TEC and migratory species.

For ease of illustration, this case study uses the example of how the Queensland

environmental approvals system under the EP Act, (particularly the EIS process) would

be applied to protect listed TEC and migratory species which are controlling provisions

under the EPBC Act (sections 18 and 18A and 20 and 20A respectively) from impacts

of resource projects. It is important to note that an actual assessment under this EP Act

would fully consider all relevant MNES covered by the Program.

Mining projects can involve a range of activities that have the potential to impact on the

environment. Such activities include land clearing and earthworks to prepare the site

and ongoing activities associated with the extraction of resource materials, operation of

processing facilities and associated infrastructure and general use of the site.

Extraction often involves mining below the water table.

Most modern mining techniques have high water demands for extraction, processing,

and waste disposal. Vehicles and equipment used during the construction and

operation may impact on fauna by direct disturbances associated with noise and air

emissions which may result in the disruption of behavioural patterns (e.g. breeding

cycles, migration) of fauna.

This case study specifically outlines how matters of MNES would be considered under

the environmental approvals process under Queensland’s EP Act, from initial

environmental application by a proponent through the EIS process to the granting of

the environmental approval, as well as conditioning, monitoring, reporting and auditing.

Scenario

A proponent is seeking approval for a new silica and heavy mineral sands (zircon, rutile

and ilmenite) mining project in Cape York region in Far North Queensland. The project

would involve the extraction of 1 million tonnes of material/per year.

Environmental attributes in the area include:

extensive aeolian (wind formed) dune fields with extensive diversity of dune

landforms (including examples of counter-wall dunes and large elongate

parabolic dunes)

littoral rainforest and coastal vine thickets communities which provide significant

habitat for threatened plants and animals

areas supporting a large roosting population of the little tern and two endemic

rare skink species.



The project would result in the potential removal of the critically endangered littoral

rainforest and coastal vine thickets of eastern Australia TEC and the potential

disturbance of roosting habitat of little tern (Sterna albifrons) which is listed as a marine

and migratory species under the EPBC Act. The proposed activity, therefore, has the

potential to have a significant impact on MNES—specifically listed TECs and listed

migratory species under the EPBC Act.

1. Determine the likelihood of a significant impact on MNES

The proposed project was determined to have the potential to have significant impacts

on MNES, including listed TECs and listed migratory species.

Requirement for EIS for proposed major resource projects

In Queensland, resource activities, such as silica mining, are Environmentally Relevant

Activities (ERA) that may only be carried out by a person holding or operating under an

environmental authority (EA) issued under the EP Act, and a resource tenement

granted under relevant resource legislation, e.g. the Mineral Resources Act 1989 or the

Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004. A mining lease (the tenure

which permits mining operations to commence) cannot be issued until an EA for a

resource activity is approved. The Director-General of DEHP is the chief executive of

the EP Act and the administering authority for ERA (excluding some prescribed ERA

devolved to local government and DAFF).

For the proposed silica mining project the proponent would be required to make a site

specific application for an EA under the EP Act. This type of application (i.e. site

specific application) is required if any of the proposed ERA for the EA are ineligible

ERA (i.e. do not meet the eligibility criteria for a standard application). In addition to the

mining activities, the EA application for the silica mining project would need to consider

any proposed activities that are directly associated with, or facilitate or support, the

mining activities and which would (where they are not conducted on a mining

tenement) otherwise require approval under the EP Act as ERA. For this project, these

would likely include extractive and screening activities (ERA 16), chemical storage

(ERA 8), bulk material handling (ERA 50) and waste disposal (ERA 60).

Before the administrating authority can decide the EA application, the EP Act requires

that the project’s likely environmental impacts be assessed and measures proposed to

avoid or minimise any adverse impacts. Large-scale resource projects usually trigger

assessment by EIS. The EIS process under the EP Act is a thorough and rigorous

process that considers the social, economic and environmental effects of a project,

including where relevant, impacts on MNES.

After an EA application is made by the proponent, the administrating authority for the

EP Act (DEHP) must assess whether an EIS is required for the proposed resource

activity. An EIS may be required for projects that would involve:

a significant environmental impact

a high level of uncertainty about potential impacts

a high level of public interest or is likely to contribute substantially to cumulative

impacts even if the project on it is own would not have a significant impact.



Any proposed large-scale resource projects trigger the need for an EIS if the project

met any of the EIS triggers in the DEHP guideline, ‘Triggers for environmental impact

statements under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 for mining, petroleum and gas

activities (EIS trigger guideline). A decision may be made to require an EIS even if no

EIS criteria are triggered, if DEHP or the Queensland Minister for Environment and

Heritage Protection, having regard to the standard criteria determines that the project

applied for would involve:

a significant environmental impact

a high level of uncertainty about potential impacts

a high level of public interest, or

potentially substantial cumulative impacts.

For the proposed silica mining project, DEHP would determine that an EIS assessment

is required as the proposed project would meet the following triggers in the EIS triggers

guideline, being:

The proposed project would have a significant impact on Category A or

Category B sensitive environmental areas.

Under the EP Act, a Category A includes the GBR region under the Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. Category B areas are important areas that

are subject to international conventions that Australia is a signatory including

the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals and

the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural

Heritage. Category B areas also include areas that contain endangered regional

ecosystems.

The project would be considered to potentially have a significant impact on both

Category A and B sensitive environmental areas.

The proposed project would involve activities in a marine area. In this case the

project is likely to involve activities in a marine area associated with vessel

movements from the port.

Standard criteria

The standard criteria under the EP Act (Schedule 4) are:

the principles of ESD, as set out in the National Strategy for Ecologically

Sustainable Development

any applicable environmental protection policy

any applicable national, state or local government plans, standards, agreements

or requirements

any applicable environmental impact study, assessment or report

the character, resilience and values of the receiving environment

all submissions made by the applicant and submitters

the best practice environmental management for activities under any relevant

instrument, or proposed instrument

the financial implications of the requirements under an instrument, or proposed

instrument, mentioned in paragraph (g) of the EP Act, schedule 4, as they



would relate to the type of activity or industry carried out, or proposed to be

carried out, under the instrument

the public interest

any applicable site management plan

any relevant integrated environmental management system or proposed

integrated environmental management system

any other matter prescribed under a regulation.

2. Adequate information is provided to assess the activity, its potential impacts

and mitigation strategies during the EIS process

The proponent may arrange a pre-design/pre-lodgement meeting with DEHP before

lodging an application for an EA. The purpose of the pre-design/pre-lodgement meeting

is to assist the proponent in identifying relevant environmental issues and the principles

of sustainable development early in the planning stage and to assist DEHP in

understanding the level of impact or significance of the project.

To initiate the EIS process under the EP Act, the proponent for the proposed silica

mining project would be required to submit a draft TOR to DEHP using DEHP’s generic

TOR. The TOR for an EIS must include the matters necessary for ensuring the

assessment of the project under the EIS provides enough information about the project

and its relevant impacts to allow decision-making. The TOR would require an

assessment of the values and impacts to listed TECs and threatened species (i.e.

littoral rainforest and coastal vine thickets of eastern Australia and the little tern).

The proponent must also provide a description of the project and operational land

(often referred to as the initial advice statement) and all information required under

section 71 and section 41(3) of the EP Act and sections 6 and 7 of the Environmental

Protection Regulation 2008 (EP Regulation). This also assists stakeholders and the

local community to determine their level of interest in the project. The document would

scope the potential impacts to be investigated in an EIS, including impacts on

threatened ecological communities, marine and migratory species.

The draft TOR would be publically notified and comments received during the

notification period would be provided to the proponent. The proponent must, within the

period prescribed under a regulation, give the chief executive of the EP Act—a written

summary of the comments; a statement of the proponent’s response to the comments;

and any amendments of the draft terms of reference the proponent proposes because

of the comments. DEHP would decide whether or not the responses provided by the

proponent were adequate. The chief executive would then finalise the TOR and publish

the TOR notice.

Within two years of the Queensland Government finalising the TOR, the proponent

would be required to submit an EIS for the proposed silica mine project. The EIS must

meet the requirements of the EP Act and EP Regulation and address all matters

outlined in the TOR for the project. The EIS must identify and assess expected adverse

and beneficial environmental, social and economic impacts of the project and include

suitable planning, mitigation and monitoring measures to manage any adverse impacts

of the project.



When determining the significance of an impact, the EIS must take into account the

scale, intensity, duration, frequency and irreversibility of the impact, and the risk of

environmental harm. Scientific and specialist studies undertaken in response to the

TOR must provide details of the methodology, reliability, assumptions and scientific

conclusions used to predict the potential adverse and beneficial impacts. Offsets must

be identified where residual impacts from development on an area possessing Matters

of State Environmental Significance (MSES) cannot be avoided or minimised. The EIS

must include a stand-alone assessment report for MNES.

The EIS would need to include an outline of the TECs and migratory species values

associated with the site, predict the nature and extent of likely impacts and an outline of

measures that would be implemented to avoid, reduce or manage the impacts on the

littoral rainforest and coastal vine thickets of eastern Australia and the little tern.

Proposed mitigation measures for impacts on MNES must be consistent with those

proposed under Queensland legislation. Any residual impacts on MNES must be offset

according to Australian Government requirements (i.e. EPBC Act Environmental

Offsets Policy 201210).

To ensure that adequate assessment of MNES have been undertaken, the proponent

would need to refer to relevant EPBC Act guidelines (e.g. Significant Impact

Guidelines—Matters of National Environmental Significance, the Species Profile and

Threats Database (SPRAT) for the coastal vine thicket ecological community and the

little tern).


taken into account during the EIS process

Public notices are used to advertise the start of the public review period for the TOR

and EIS under the EP Act. For the proposed silica mine project, the public notices

would be placed on the DEHP web site and in newspapers circulating in Australia,

Queensland and the area of the proposed project site. DEHP (for the TOR stage) and

the proponent (for the EIS stage) would also be required to notify all affected parties

(as defined in section 38 of the EP Act) that the TOR/EIS is available. This would

usually be done by mail and would include: people who hold land on, or adjacent to,

the proposed tenure; any registered native title body corporate or claimant, or a

representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander body; and the relevant local

government authority.

At various stages in the EIS process, DEHP would also seek advice from advisory

bodies. For this purpose, an advisory body is an individual or organisation that is

requested to provide advice to DEHP within the extent of their areas of responsibility,

interest and expertise. The option to use advisory bodies is consistent with DEHP’s aim

to ensure the final TOR and the EIS are comprehensive, and adequately assess

impacts on matters relevant to the interests and requirements of all key agencies and

interested parties. Members of the advisory body may be individuals with specific

expertise and may include: federal and state government departments; local

government authorities; statutory authorities and academic institutions; industry

10

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/12630bb4-2c10-4c8e-815f-2d7862bf87e7/files/offsets-policy.pdf



organisations, community groups (including environmental groups) and special interest

groups (including recognised landowner and Indigenous organisations).

The proponent would be encouraged to also undertake community consultation with

members of the public and regional councils and undertake a regular and ongoing

consultation process with the Traditional Owners (if relevant) during the public

submission period of the EIS. The proponent may also circulate information about the

project to the community through meetings, phone calls, letters and emails.

Submissions received from the public, affected and interested persons and advisory

bodies during the EIS public notification periods would be provided to the proponent.

The proponent would be required to respond to these comments and make any

amendments to the submitted EIS as a result of the submissions.

The chief executive would not accept a final TOR or EIS that has not been subject to a

comprehensive public consultation process and where all public comments have been

considered in the preparation of the final documentation.

4. Determination of the project’s acceptability—finalisation of the EIS process

Step 1 – EIS assessment report

The chief executive of the EP Act can only allow the EIS document to proceed if it

considers that the EIS addresses the final TOR in an acceptable form; if the

proponent’s response to the EIS submissions was adequate; and that the proponent

has made all appropriate amendments to the submitted EIS because of the

submissions.

If the chief executive of the EP Act decided to allow the EIS to proceed to the final

stage of the EIS process, DEHP would prepare an EIS assessment report. In preparing

an EIS assessment report (as per section 58 of the EP Act), the chief executive must

consider the following:

the final TOR for the EIS

the submitted EIS

the submitted supplementary EIS or any amendments to the EIS

additional information submitted

the amended environmental management plan

all properly made submissions and any other submissions accepted by the chief

executive

the standard criteria (standard criteria includes ESD)

any other matter prescribed under a regulation.

The EIS assessment report must:

address the adequacy of the EIS in addressing the final TOR

address the adequacy of any environmental management plan for the project

make recommendations about the suitability of the project

recommend any conditions on which any approval required for the project may

be given

contain another matter prescribed under a regulation.



The EIS assessment report would need to provide an assessment of the adequacy of

the submitted EIS in addressing MNES under the EPBC Act. This is provided as a

stand-alone chapter in the EIS assessment report.

The EIS process for the proposed mine under the EP Act would be completed when

the proponent is given a copy of the EIS assessment report. A decision approval

recommendation is then made on whether the proposed silica mining project is refused

or approved with appropriate conditions.

Step 2 – Environmental approvals and conditioning

Conditions setting of environmental performance requirements—environmental

approvals

After the EIS process is complete (i.e. provision of the EIS assessment report to the

proponent) the following environmental approvals may be required by the proponent

before operations can commence for the proposed silica mining project:

On the mining lease:

Following completion of the EIS process, the chief executive of the EP Act is

required to decide to either approve the EA application for a resource activity

with conditions or to refuse it as part of the decision stage. The completed EIS

forms the application documents used in this decision. A notice of the decision

(including draft EA if decision to approve application) would be provided to the

applicant and any submitters to the EIS. The submitter may give objection to the

notice (section 182 of the EP Act) or request referral to the Land Court (section

183 of EP Act). The administering authority must refer the application to the

Land Court for objection decisions. Issuing of the EA under the EP Act allows

the tenure to be granted under Mineral Resources Act 1989.

Other approvals for activities such as plumbing, building or drainage work (e.g.

operational works (tidal works) applications) to be carried out on the mining

tenement would be required under a combination of other legislation, including

the SP Act.

Off the mining lease:

If the proponent proposes to conduct any prescribed ERA off the mining

tenement, it would be required to apply for an EA under the SP Act (e.g. ERA

16—extractive and screening activities, ERA 50—bulk material handling). A

development permit under SP Act for a material change of use may also be

required for some prescribed ERA (that are not mobile and temporary ERA).

The proponent would apply to the assessment manager using the IDAS

process. The assessment manager for the development application is

determined from schedule 3 of the Sustainable Planning Regulation 2009. The

assessment manager would normally be the relevant local government where

the development is assessable against the local government planning scheme

(e.g. material change of use). Otherwise the assessment manager would be the

chief executive of DSDIP.



Deciding an environmental authority application

In deciding whether or not to approve an EA application under the EP Act (for ERA for

the resource activities on the mining tenure and any prescribed ERA off the mining

lease), the administering authority must comply with:

the criteria for decision under section 175 or section 176 of the EP Act,

including any properly made submission about the application

the standard criteria in the EP Act

any responses to an information request

prescribed matters set out in the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008

including:

section 51, matters to be considered for environmental management

decisions

section 52, conditions to be considered for environmental management

decisions

section 53, matters to be considered for decisions imposing monitoring

conditions

section 55, release of water or waste to land

section 56, release of water, other than stormwater, to surface water

section 57, release of stormwater

section 60, activity involving storing or moving bulk material

section 62, activity involving acid-producing rock

section 64, activity involving indirect release of contaminants to

groundwater.

Additionally, for ERA devolved to local government, the local government may have

specific assessment criteria relevant to local environmental values.

The administering authority would give consideration to these regulatory requirements

in the context of specific information about the environmental impacts of a particular

project provided in the application documents for an EA (or an EIS if relevant). For the

EA for the resource activity, the EIS documents form the application documents upon

which DEHP decides. For any prescribed ERA off the mining lease, the proponent

would be encouraged to provide sufficient information in the EIS process to assist the

chief executive in their decisions, however the EIS would not automatically form the

application documents. The chief executive in this instance may request further

information during the IDAS process.

The grounds for refusal of the EA are outlined in section 318H of the EP Act and

include matters such as the applicant’s environmental record or any disqualifying event

which may have occurred for the particular individual or corporation applying. Under

the EP Act, applications for ERA must be refused if:

the applicant is not a registered operator

the administering authority is the assessment manager or concurrence agency

for an associated development application and is either refusing the

development application or giving a preliminary approval only.



Additionally, the chief executive may refuse the application if:

the applicant is not suitable due to their environmental record

a disqualifying event has happened to:

the applicant

a partner of the applicant

any of the corporation’s executive officers

another corporation where any of the applicant’s corporation is, or has been

executive officers.


If the EA application is approved, the administrating authority would impose

environmental management conditions. The conditions that are imposed on the EA

must meet the requirements under section 203 to 210 of the EP Act, where applicable.

The EA conditions set the environmental performance requirements that the proponent

must comply with. They would relate to the operation of the activity and also cover

rehabilitation requirements. Conditions in an EA would generally state what is and what

is not permitted as part of the activity. Model conditions which have been developed for

specific industries would be applied, where appropriate, and/or any other conditions

which are required or considered necessary or desirable by the administering authority.

Possible outcome-based conditions that could be applied to the project may include:

Water quality and groundwater conditions: Contaminants that will, or have the

potential to cause environmental harm must not be released directly or indirectly

to any waters as a result of the authorised mining activities, except as permitted

under the conditions of this environmental authority. If contaminants are

permitted to be release to surface or groundwater, then the location and limits of

the timing, quantity and quality would be specified. A receiving environmental

monitoring program would also be required.

Land resource condition: Treatment and management of acid sulfate soils must

comply with the current edition of the Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Technical

Manual.

Rehabilitation requirements: Landform stability and management of on-site and

off-site impacts post mining to ensure the land is fit for the intended post-mine

landuse.

Offset plan condition: An environmental offset condition may require works or

activities to be carried out on land on which a relevant activity for the EA is

carried out or on other land in the state. An environmental offset condition may

require a monetary payment to an environmental offset trust. If the EA holder

has entered into an agreement about an environmental offset, an environmental

offset condition may require the holder to comply with the agreement. The EA

holder may enter into an agreement with the administering authority or another

entity to establish the obligations, or secure the performance, of a party to the

agreement about a condition. The holder of an EA entering into an agreement

includes the holder entering into an agreement before the EA is issued.



Operation of the activity

The proponent for the silica mining project would be required to submit a plan of

operations to the administering authority at least 20 business days before carrying out

any activities on the mining lease. It is an offence to carry out activities on a relevant

mining or petroleum lease without a plan of operations that complies with section 288

of the EP Act.

The purpose of a plan of operations is too clearly and transparently state the way in

which the conditions of an EA will be complied with. The plan of operations contains

information about where activities would be carried out, an action program which

demonstrates how the holder of the EA would comply with conditions, a rehabilitation

program and a proposed amount of financial assurance. The plan of operations must

include a:

description of all resources activities that will take place on the site during the

time frame covered by the plan

proposed program of actions to comply with EA conditions

rehabilitation program for land disturbed or land that will be disturbed during the

period of the plan

proposed amount of financial assurance based on the guidelines for calculating

financial assurance

compliance statement describing how much you have complied with your EA

conditions.

For the purposes of meeting the requirements of section 288(1)(a)(iii) of the EP Act, the

description of the land to which the plan applies must include identification of:

any environmentally sensitive areas

any state-significant biodiversity values

any endangered, vulnerable, rare or near threatened wildlife species

dominant ecosystems, topographic features, and soils

watercourses, wetlands, springs (including relevant environmental values), river

improvement trust asset areas and wild river declaration areas and floodplains.

A compliance statement is required under section 288(1)(d) of the EP Act. The purpose

of the compliance statement is to state the extent to which the plan of operations

complies with the conditions of the EA.

Step 3 – Monitoring, compliance and auditing environmental performance

Compliance with the conditions of an EA is monitored and enforced by the relevant

administering authority (e.g. DEHP for the EA of a resource activity and local

government for some devolved ERA). Failure to comply with the EA conditions is a

breach of the EA and there are various compliance enforcement actions available

under the EP Act (e.g. transitional environmental programs, environmental protection

orders, direction, clean-up and cost-recovery notices).



The administering authority may cancel or suspend an EA if certain events occur.

These events are specified in section 278 of the EP Act. For example, an EA can be

cancelled or suspended if the holder of an EA is convicted of an environmental offence.

In the event that the administering authority proposes to cancel or suspend an EA, they

would be required to give notice outlining the proposed action and the grounds or

reasons for the proposed action.


4.8 Ramsar wetlands

Under the Ramsar Convention, a wide variety of natural and human-made habitat

types ranging from rivers to coral reefs can be classified as wetlands. These wetlands

include swamps, marshes, billabongs, lakes, salt marshes, mudflats, mangroves, coral

reefs, fens, peat bogs, or bodies of water—whether natural or artificial, permanent or

temporary. Water within these areas can be: static or flowing; fresh, brackish or saline;

and can include inland rivers and coastal or marine water to a depth of six metres at

low tide. Underground wetlands are also recognised.

The Ramsar Convention encourages the designation of sites containing representative,

rare or unique wetlands, or wetlands that are important for conserving biological

diversity. Once designated, these sites are added to the convention's List of Wetlands

of International Importance and become known as ‘Ramsar sites’. In designating a

wetland as a Ramsar site, countries agree to establish and oversee a management

framework aimed at conserving the wetland and ensuring its wise use. Wise use under

the convention is broadly defined as maintaining the ecological character of a wetland.

Wetlands can be included on the List of Wetlands of International Importance because

of their ecological, botanical, zoological, limnological or hydrological importance.

For a wetland to be designated to this list it must satisfy one or more of the criteria for

identifying wetlands of international importance.

Queensland has five sites recognised under the international Convention on Wetlands

of International importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention) —

Bowling Green Bay, Shoalwater and Corio Bays, Great Sandy Strait, Moreton Bay and

Currawinya Lakes. The Convention is an international treaty which aims to halt the

world wide loss of wetlands and conserve those that remain through wise use and

management. Ramsar wetlands are also recognised under the EPBC Act and

principles for their management are outlined in Schedule 6 of that Act.

As a signatory to the Ramsar Convention, Australia has a number of obligations,

including maintaining the ecological character of sites and notifying the Convention

Secretariat of changes to ecological character. It is these aspects that must be

considered when managing Queensland protected areas that contain a Ramsar site.

In the draft Strategic Assessment Report, the values of the two Ramsar wetlands were

discussed – Bowling Green Bay and Shoalwater and Corio Bay – as these are located

in the GBR coastal zone.

4.8.1 Protection of Ramsar Wetlands under the EPBC Act

Australian Ramsar Management Principles

Under the Australian Ramsar Management Principles, one of the primary purposes of

Ramsar wetland management is to maintain the ecological character of the wetland.

Under sections 16 and 17B of the EPBC Act, any action that is likely to result in a

significant impact on the ecological character of a Ramsar wetland requires approval.

Ecological character is defined by the Ramsar Convention Resolution IX.1 (Annex A)

as the combination of the ecosystem components, processes and benefits and


services that characterise the wetland at a given point in time (i.e. the time of

delegation) (Ramsar Convention Resolution VI.1, paragraph 2.1).

Under the EPBC Act, an action should not be approved if it would be inconsistent with:

maintaining the ecological character of the wetland or

providing for the conservation and sustainable use of the wetland.

Whether the action/s would have an unacceptable impact is a function of the

significance of its potential impacts. Under the EPBC Act Significant Impact Guidelines,

an action is likely to have a significant impact on the ecological character of the

declared Ramsar wetland if there is a possibility that it will result in:

areas of the wetland being destroyed or substantially modified

a substantial and measurable change in the hydrological regime of the wetland,

e.g. substantial change to the volume, timing, duration, and frequency of ground

and surface water flows to and within the wetland

the habitat of lifecycle of native species, including invertebrate fauna and fish

species, dependent upon the wetland being seriously affected

a substantial and measurable change in the water quality of the wetland – for

example a substantial change in the level of salinity, pollutants, or nutrients in

the wetland, or water temperature which may adversely impact on biodiversity,

ecological integrity, social amenity or human health

an invasive species that is harmful to the ecological character of the wetland

being established (or an existing invasive species being spread) in the wetland.

Relevant documents that should be considered when assessing the potential impacts

and risks to a Ramsar site include:

Ramsar information sheets

Ecological Character Descriptions

Plans of management.

Ramsar information sheets

Contracting Parties to the Ramsar Convention are required to provide a Ramsar

Information Sheet for all sites designated as wetlands of international importance under

the Ramsar Convention. Ramsar Information Sheets need to be provided to the

Ramsar Secretariat at the time of nomination of a site to the List of Wetlands of

International Importance. Furthermore, parties to the Ramsar Convention have a

commitment to provide updated Ramsar Information Sheet information for all of their

Ramsar sites at intervals of six years or when there are any significant changes in the

sites' ecological character.

The Ramsar information sheet provides essential data on each designated Wetland of

International Importance, in order to allow analysis of Ramsar-listed wetlands around

the world, provide baseline data for measuring changes in the ecological character of

wetlands listed under the Ramsar Convention, and provide material for publications

which inform the public about Ramsar sites. Under the EPBC Act, the detailed written

description of a designated wetland in the Ramsar Information Sheet legally defines the

'declared Ramsar wetland'.


Ecological Character Descriptions

Ecological Character Descriptions (ECDs) supplement the description of the ecological

character contained in the Ramsar Information Sheet submitted under the Ramsar

Convention for each listed wetland. Collectively, they form an official record of the

ecological character of the site.

ECD describe the ecological character of a wetland at the time of its listing as a

Wetland of International Importance. The description of ecological character is a

requirement under the Ramsar Convention and the Australian Ramsar Management

Principles.

The Ecological Character Description for a Ramsar wetland is also used to:

assist in implementing Australia's obligations under the Ramsar Convention, as

stated in Schedule 6 (Managing wetlands of international importance) of the

EPBC Regulations 2000, including to describe and maintain the ecological

character of declared Ramsar wetlands in Australia.

assist any person considering a proposed activity that may impact on a

declared Ramsar wetland.

Plans of management

Plans of management are used to formulate and implement planning so as to promote

the wise use and conservation of wetlands. Plans of management should be consistent

with the Ramsar Convention, Schedule 6 of the EPBC Regulations 2000 (the

Australian Ramsar Management Principles) and relevant National Guidelines for

Ramsar Wetlands – Implementing the Ramsar Convention in Australia.

Section 328 of the EPBC Act states that the Commonwealth is required to make plans

of management for Ramsar sites entirely on Commonwealth land but not within a

Commonwealth Reserve. For all other Ramsar wetlands best endeavours are being

used to ensure that there is a management plan in place that is consistent with the

Australian Ramsar Management Principles (Schedule 6 of the EPBC Regulations).

According to the Australian Ramsar Management Principles, the primary purpose of

management of a Ramsar wetland is to describe and maintain the ecological character

of the wetland. Additionally, the EPBC Regulations note that before an action is taken,

the likely impact on the wetlands ecological character should be assessed.

4.8.2 Protection of Ramsar wetlands under the Program

The Queensland Government is committed to maintaining the ecological character of

each Ramsar wetland, and conservation and sustainable use of each wetland is

promoted for the benefit of humanity in a way that is compatible with maintenance of

the natural properties of the ecosystem. This is to be achieved through the

implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable

development.

Through implementing processes such as a robust EIS process supported by a strong

policy framework, the Queensland Government will ensure that developments under

the Program will not have an unacceptable impact on Ramsar wetlands.


Queensland Government Policies

The SPP defines matters of state interest in land use planning and development. The

applicable state interests under the SPP for consideration are Economic growth and

Environment and heritage with the following outcomes for:

Agriculture – Planning protects the resources on which agriculture depends and

supports the long-term viability and growth of the agriculture sector (including

protecting fisheries resources from development that compromises long-term

fisheries productivity and accessibility).

Biodiversity – Matters of environmental significance are valued and protected,

and the health and resilience of biodiversity is maintained or enhanced to

support ecological integrity.

Coastal environment – The coastal environment is protected and enhanced,

while supporting opportunities for coastal-dependent development, compatible

urban form, and safe public access along the coast.

Water quality – The environmental values and quality of Queensland waters are

protected and enhanced. The water quality objectives for Bowling Green Bay

Ramsar site are currently being developed by DEHP in consultation with the

community.

Wetland environmental values under the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008

(Qld) are described as the qualities of a wetland that support and maintain the following

are environmental values:

the health and biodiversity of the wetland’s ecosystems

the wetland’s natural state and biological integrity

the presence of distinct or unique features, plants or animals and their habitats,

including threatened wildlife, near threatened wildlife and rare wildlife under the

NC Act

the wetland’s natural hydrological cycle

the natural interaction of the wetland with other ecosystems, including other

wetlands.


Impacts from activities will be addressed by the Program. Activities have the potential

to impact Ramsar sites through variety of sources depending on the location and

nature of the action.

The potential impacts on any Ramsar wetland are dependent on the supporting and

critical components (e.g. flora or fauna present in the wetland), processes (for example

breeding activities) and services (e.g. provision of a key habitat) that make up the

ecological character of a wetland. The summary of all the sources risks and impacts is

outlined in Tables 3 and 4.

The Program Report describes the Program, including the EIS assessment and

approval process that will be undertaken for activities under the Program. The

Queensland Government’s assessment processes will require proponents to identify

and demonstrate that any impacts on a Ramsar wetland will be of an acceptable level.

To assist proponents to satisfactorily consider Ramsar wetlands in their preparation of

EIS documents, Queensland will develop MNES guidelines, in conjunction with the


Australian Government, that proponents will have regard to in preparing a project

proposal and EIS documents. The guidelines will:


projects may be in, adjacent to or near a Ramsar wetland

direct proponents to the relevant guidance documents including Ramsar

information sheets, plans of management and EPBC Act guidance documents

require proponents proposing activities that may potentially impact a Ramsar

wetland to particularly consider any relevant draft or final ECD

require a description of the Ramsar wetland’s ecological characteristics that

could be impacted by the proposed activity

require an analysis of the potential risks and impacts to the ecological character




provide examples of what could be considered an unacceptable or

unsustainable impact on a Ramsar wetland property.





Through EIS processes, Queensland will have regard for relevant policy documents,

guidelines, Ramsar information sheets, Ecological Character Descriptions and plans of

management of the Australian Government.

EIS processes ensure a rigorous assessment of the proponent’s project proposal and

EIS documentation, including the appropriateness and acceptability of identified



potential impacts to the ecological character of Ramsar wetlands.













4.8.3 Outcomes for Ramsar wetlands under the Program

Regarding Ramsar wetlands, the Queensland Government commits to:


management for a Ramsar wetland or proposes unacceptable impacts to the

ecological character of a Ramsar wetland

(2) ensuring there are no unacceptable or unsustainable impacts to Ramsar

wetlands resulting from urban, industrial, aquaculture, port and tourism

developments that undertake an EIS process under the Program.



protection of Ramsar wetlands, including the Queensland Wetlands and Wet Tropics

programs, joint field management programs, ongoing monitoring and reporting

activities, and the LTSP and associated initiatives.


5. Implementation of commitments The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring that development in the GBR is

appropriately managed to ensure it maintains or enhances the OUV for which it was

declared a WHA.

Consequently, the Queensland Government is working to strengthen its legislative and

regulatory framework aimed at managing and protecting the GBR coastal zone and the

commitments outlined in both the revised Program Report and this Supplementary

Report have been developed to respond to the key challenges facing the GBR.

The development of the LTSP was requested by the WHC and will build on the findings

of the comprehensive strategic assessment and bring relevant programs and activities

under one plan to ensure greater coordination, efficiency and effectiveness of efforts to

protect and manage the GBR. It will be the primary implementation mechanism to

deliver future joint commitments and actions within the GBRMPA on a range of

management issues.

Table 5 is a list of the Queensland Government’s final strategic assessment

commitments and contains details of their implementation mechanism and current

status.

Table 5 Implementation of commitments

No. Commitment Implementation

mechanism

Status

1 The Queensland Government will complete regional

plans in the GBR coastal zone where there is a gap

and continue to update other regional plans to ensure

they respond to the latest information and pressures.

DSDIP Commenced

2 The Queensland Government will maintain and work

to add to its protected area estate and continue to

provide funding for protected area management in the

GBR coastal zone.

DNPRSR Ongoing

3 The Queensland Government will undertake on-

ground actions which will deliver long-term benefits for

threatened species.

DEHP / DPC /

LTSP

Ongoing

4 The Queensland Government will introduce legislation

to implement key actions of the QPS. The legislation

will concentrate development at five PPDAs and

introduce port master planning which will incorporate

environmental considerations and community

engagement. The QPS also prohibits dredging within

and adjoining the GBRWHA for the development of

new, or the expansion of existing port facilities outside

PPDAs, for the next 10 years.

DSDIP Commence by

late 2014



mechanism

Status

5 The Queensland Government will meet the EPBC Act

requirements set out in Table 5 in the revised

Program Report.

Queensland

Government

Ongoing

6 The Queensland Government is committed to working

with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA,

to develop MNES guidelines for proponents to

consider when assessing impacts on MNES during

the EIS processes under the Program.

DPC / LTSP Commence by

early 2015

7 The Queensland Government will apply the Australian

Government Offsets Policy until the Queensland

Offsets Framework is accredited by the Australian

Government. Offsets guidelines that deliver net

benefits will be prepared for application by planning

and development decision-makers in consultation with

the Australian Government.

DEHP / DSDIP Commence by

end 2014

8 The Queensland Government will develop an offsets

register to spatially identify areas used as offsets

under Queensland legislation and priority areas for

future offsets.

DEHP Commence by

end 2014

9 The Queensland Government will develop a single

Direct Benefit Management Plan for the GBRWHA

consistent with the accredited Queensland Offsets

Framework.

DEHP / DPC /

LTSP

Commence by

early 2015

10 The Queensland Government will use the Australian

Government ‘Protected Matters Search Tool’ in

conducting planning and making EIS decisions related

to EPBC Act protected matters.

DEHP / DSDIP Ongoing

11 The Queensland Government will ensure that

stringent conditions addressing MNES and OUV will

be incorporated into approval recommendations.


12 The Queensland Government will prioritise actions to

recover species, taking into account national recovery

plans, threat abatement plans and conservation

advice.

DEHP / DPC /

LTSP

Ongoing

13 The Queensland Government will continue to work

with the Australian Government and other states and

territories to achieve consistent national listing of

threatened species.

DEHP Ongoing



mechanism

Status

14 The Queensland Government will require project

proponents to apply the Australian Government’s

guidelines for consulting with Indigenous peoples in

relation to cultural heritage and the management of

traditional use. The Australian Government guidelines

will be developed in cooperation with Queensland and

the State will also explore ways to streamline

Indigenous consultation processes between the two

governments.

DEHP / DSDIP Commence by

early 2015

15 The Queensland Government will work with the

Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to

develop guidelines for proponents to consider when

assessing cumulative impacts on MNES in the

GBRWHA.


early 2015

16 The Queensland Government will ensure that

fisheries are managed for the purpose of ecological

sustainability, supported by the ongoing collection of

commercial and recreational data through various

monitoring programs.

DAFF / DPC Ongoing

17 The Queensland Government will incorporate

reporting on MNES into Queensland State of the

Environment reporting.

DEHP Commence

2015

18 The Queensland Government is providing $12 million

over three years in grants under the Everyone’s

Environment Grants program.

DEHP Commenced

19 The Queensland Government will provide $30 million

of NRM funding to the reef for biodiversity, wetlands,

water quality, coastal risk, sustainable agriculture and

weeds and pest management projects over the next

five years. This will support the sustainable

management of natural resources and help protect

significant natural assets.

DNRM Commenced

20 The Queensland Government will continue to support

programs that improve the OUV of the Wet Tropics

World Heritage Area.

DEHP / Wet

Tropics

Management

Authority /

DNPRSR

Ongoing



mechanism

Status

21 The Queensland Government will continue to support

the Queensland Wetlands Program to deliver a range

of new mapping, information and decision-making

tools and products to enable local, state and federal

government agencies, landowners, regional natural

resource management bodies and conservation

groups to protect and manage wetlands into the

future.

DEHP Ongoing

22 The Queensland Government is committed to

providing 40 new Indigenous Land and Sea Rangers

in Queensland over three years, bringing the total

number of Indigenous Land and Sea Rangers to 80.

DEHP Commenced


closely with GBRMPA to increase the implementation

of complementary actions across protected area

jurisdictions, including the streamlining of assessment

and joint permitting processes, the formulation of joint

park user policies, and discouraging repeat offending.

DNPRSR / DPC Ongoing

24 The Queensland Government will continue to fund

and support ongoing joint field management activities

with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA.

DNPRSR / DPC Ongoing

25 The Queensland Government will advise the

Australian Government of any proposed changes of

substance to the Program and will prepare a MNES

Impact Statement in such cases.


26 The Queensland Government will report to the

Australian Government regarding proposed

developments that may impact upon world heritage

properties to ensure Australia’s international

obligations continue to be met.


27 The Queensland Government will report annually to

the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Forum on

implementation of the Reef 2050 – Long Term

Sustainability Plan.

DPC / LTSP Commencing

2015



develop a Reef 2050 – Long Term Sustainability Plan

for the GBRWHA by the end of 2014 and ensure its

implementation.

DPC / LTSP Commenced



mechanism

Status



develop an outcomes-based framework for the

GBRWHA as part of the Reef 2050 – Long Term

Sustainability Plan.


early 2015



establish an integrated monitoring framework and

program for the GBRWHA as part of the Reef 2050 –

Long Term Sustainability Plan.


early 2015


with industry and other stakeholders in Gladstone

Harbour through the Gladstone Healthy Harbour

Partnership to ensure open and accountable

management of Gladstone Harbour, including annual

reporting on ecosystem health and future actions

underpinned by rigorous monitoring and science.

DEHP Ongoing

32 The Queensland Government is committed to

reducing the risk of shipping incidents and potential

pollution of the marine environment, including

implementing its responsibilities as part of the North

East Shipping Management Group.

DTMR (Marine

Safety

Queensland)

Ongoing

33 The Queensland Government is committed to funding

of $55 million over the next five years to develop,

promote and install best management practice

systems to improve reef water quality.

DEHP / DPC Commenced

34 The Queensland Government will continue to fund

and support the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan

and the associated Paddock to Reef monitoring

program to help achieve the long-term goal of no

detrimental impact from the quality of water entering

the GBR. Consideration will be given to the inclusion

of other pollutants other than broadscale land use

during the Plan’s next review in 2018.

DPC / LTSP Ongoing


Appendix 1: Summary of public submissions and Queensland Government responses

Theme Topic Summary of public comment Queensland Government response

General Strategic Assessment process

A number of submitters congratulated the Queensland Government on the strategic assessment and the work that went into developing the draft reports. Submitters advised that the reports provided a good assessment of scientific knowledge. Some criticised the draft strategic assessment reports for not providing details of the authors of the reports. Two strategic assessments for the marine and coastal components also raised concerns for them in relation to scope and methodology. Some considered there was inconsistency between the two strategic assessments regarding crossover issues such as inshore waters, coastal ecosystems, ports and islands. Some submitters suggested that a single strategic assessment covering both the marine and coastal components be prepared to present a holistic view and to demonstrate collaboration between both governments. Some suggested a moratorium on the approval of development projects until the strategic assessments are endorsed.

Technical advice, both from within and outside government, was applied during the preparation of Queensland’s draft strategic assessment reports as well as the best available expertise, data and research. The Australian Department of the Environment (DOE) and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) were also consulted and provided advice. The author of the reports is the Queensland Government. The two strategic assessments recognise the jurisdictional responsibilities between the Queensland Government and GBRMPA and were undertaken to simplify the assessment and presentation. Considerable effort was made to ensure consistency. Both strategic assessments will directly inform the Reef 2050 – Long Term Sustainability Plan (LTSP) for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). A moratorium on development approvals was not put in place for natural justice reasons. The Queensland Government has a rigorous development assessment process already in place to manage development and protect the environment.



Strategic Assessment Terms of Reference

Some submitters questioned the Queensland Government’s adherence to the strategic assessment Terms of Reference (TOR) and suggested that the reports be reviewed against the TOR prior to finalisation. No specific TOR references were provided.

The Queensland Government draft reports were independently reviewed by a contractor commissioned by the Australian Government. That review concluded the majority of the TOR was addressed in the draft reports. The few identified gaps in the TOR have been addressed in the final strategic assessment reports.

Strategic Assessment public consultation

Some submitters criticised the fact that no public comment was sought during the development of the Queensland Government’s draft reports. Indigenous stakeholders raised concerns about the joint consultation held in late 2013 and early 2014 and stated that the consultation period was too short. Some concerns were raised regarding the time taken to draft the reports. Some submitters stated the draft reports were too long to easily review and provide feedback on. Others stated there were difficulties in obtaining hard copies. Key stakeholders requested that they continue to be consulted on all relevant aspects to the strategic assessment, including the LTSP, offsets policy review, cumulative impact assessment guidelines, proposed ports legislative changes and port master planning guidelines.

The draft strategic assessment reports prepared by the Queensland Government and GBRMPA were released for public consultation by the Australian Minister for the Environment on 1 November 2013 for a 13 week (92 days) period, which was 64 days over the minimum requirement for public consultation under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). The length of the draft reports is commensurate with the requirements of the TOR and the scale and nature of the strategic assessment. The reports were made available via a number of websites, including a project specific website. CDs were available upon request and hard copies located at various locations throughout Queensland. Community information sessions and regional briefings were held to inform the public and advise on how to make a submission. A specific forum was held for Indigenous stakeholders. The Queensland Government will continue to consult with the public and key stakeholders on a range of policy initiatives relating to the GBRWHA.

Alignment of Queensland and

Some submitters were concerned that the draft strategic assessment reports prepared by the

The Queensland Government and GBRMPA worked closely during the finalisation of the draft



GBRMPA reports Queensland Government and GBRMPA contained anomalies and some of the information presented was inconsistent. Comments were also made that the two reports had a different narrative and different conclusions in relation to the overall health of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR).

strategic assessment reports to ensure consistency in the information presented and to avoid duplication of information and data. This work has continued during the finalisation of the respective reports to address perceived assessment gaps or confusion about jurisdictional boundaries.

Strategic Assessment outcomes

Some submitters were supportive of the forward commitments described in Queensland’s draft strategic assessment reports while others sought further information and clarity regarding their establishment, funding and governance arrangements. Some also highlighted specific initiatives they would like to see as part of the Queensland Program.

The Queensland Government is working to strengthen its legislative and regulatory framework aimed at managing and protecting the GBR coastal zone and the commitments outlined in the final strategic assessment reports have been developed to respond to the key challenges facing the GBR. Suggestions for additional commitments have been reviewed and feedback taken on board where appropriate. Some suggestions related to programs and activities already being undertaken and this feedback will be considered as part of their ongoing management and review. As per Commitment 28, the Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP. The findings of the strategic assessment will directly inform the development of the LTSP.

Addressing World Heritage Committee concerns

Some submitters commended the Australian and Queensland governments’ efforts in undertaking the strategic assessment and praised the draft reports as a constructive response to the WHC request. Some stated that the draft strategic assessment reports did not meet WHC’s expectations though and called for greater emphasis on cumulative impacts of particular projects and for a clear set of actions to

The Queensland Government is committed to supporting the Australian Government in fulfilling its obligations in relation to the GBR’s status as a World Heritage Area (Commitment 26). The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28). The LTSP will include an outcomes-based framework for the



address WHC concerns and improve the overall health of the GBR.

GBRWHA that contains desired outcomes and targets for protecting Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES) and its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) (Commitment 29). Additionally, the Queensland Government will work with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop guidelines for proponents to consider when assessing cumulative impacts on MNES in the GBRWHA (Commitment 15).

Queensland and Australian government resourcing

Some submitters commented that the draft strategic assessment reports did not contain funding or resourcing commitments. Some called for greater levels of funding towards the protection of the GBR and requested a similarly funded strategy to that provided for the Murray Darling River Basin. Some concerns were raised about the resourcing of particular management programs and initiatives with calls for additional funding and staffing.

Each year, the Queensland Government invests approximately $35 million in programs and initiatives aimed at the protection of the GBR. This investment includes support for the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, regional Natural Resource Management groups, the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership, the Queensland Wetlands Program, joint field management programs with the Australian Government and GBRMPA, Indigenous management programs, fisheries management programs, scientific and research projects, and enforcement and compliance actions.

MNES

World heritage Submitters generally acknowledged the GBRWHA as an important national and international natural asset. Some stated that the GBRWHA is not being adequately protected in line with Australia’s obligations to the WHC and stated that the Queensland Program and its commitments were not adequate to protect its World Heritage status. Some submitters suggested that management practices be focussed on enhancing MNES rather than on offsetting residual impacts. Some raised

The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring the OUV of Queensland’s World Heritage properties is identified, protected and conserved. All development proposals must meet the highest environmental standards. The ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ approach is central to the Queensland Government’s protection regime. The Queensland Government will not accept any project proposal that involves mining in the GBRWHA; not approve a project that proposes



concerns that the risks to the GBR from activities such as port and industrial development were not fully addressed in the draft strategic assessment reports.

activities that will contravene a plan of management for the GBRWHA or proposes unacceptable impacts to world heritage values; and will ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts to the GBRWHA from proposed developments that undertake an EIS process under the Program. The Queensland Government has committed to strengthen protection of the GBR through improvements to the Government’s planning, development and coastal management processes, including the development of guidelines for assessing impacts on MNES (Commitment 6), the use of the Australian Government’s ‘Protected Matters Search Tool’ (Commitment 10), and ensuring that conditions addressing MNES and OUV are incorporated into approval recommendations (Commitment 11).

National heritage Some submitters raised concerns about the projected condition for national heritage as poor and felt that there was inadequate emphasis on Indigenous cultural heritage and values. One submitter noted that the GBR was placed on the National Heritage List without formal assessment in line with national heritage criteria.

The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring the OUV of Queensland’s national heritage places is identified, protected and conserved. The Queensland Government will not approve projects that contravene a national heritage plan of management or propose unacceptable impacts to national heritage values. The Queensland Government acknowledges feedback received during public consultation regarding Traditional Owner cultural heritage and values. Content has been provided in this Supplementary Report in response to the comments.



Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP)

Some submitters commended the strategic assessment as being an important step to improving the health of the GBRMP. Some raised concerns about the projected condition for the GBRMP as poor, and specific concerns about the GBRMP south of Cooktown and the inshore, coastal and adjacent terrestrial ecosystems of the region. Some submitters suggested improvements for protecting the GBRMP through better alignment between national and state processes, stronger collaboration across all levels of government and with industry, and greater effort to reverse declining water quality in the GBRMP.

The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring the OUV of the GBRWHA is protected and conserved for future generations. The Queensland Government will not approve a project that proposes activities that will contravene a plan of management for the GBRMP or proposes unacceptable impacts to world heritage values; and will ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts to the GBRMP from proposed developments that undertake an EIS process under the Program. Each year, the Queensland Government invests approximately $35 million in programs and initiatives aimed at the protection of the GBR and the GBRMP. This investment includes support for the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, regional Natural Resource Management groups, the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership, the Queensland Wetlands Program, joint field management programs with the Australian Government and GBRMPA, Indigenous management programs, fisheries management programs, scientific and research projects, and enforcement and compliance actions. The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will include an outcomes-based framework for the GBRWHA that contains desired outcomes and targets for protecting MNES and OUV (Commitment 29).

Listed threatened species and

Some submitters raised concerns about listed threatened species and communities (TSCs) in the

The Queensland Government is committed to the survival and conservation status of listed TSCs and



communities GBR. Comments included the need for improved mapping of listed TSCs; the belief that there was not enough focus on TSCs that do not have MNES classification; concern about the impact of recent amendments to the Vegetation Management Act on TSCs; and suggestions that the listed TSCs under the EPBC Act be aligned with Queensland legislation. Some submitters also raised detailed issues about listed TSCs in specific locations in the GBR coastal zone.

ensuring their protection is promoted and enhanced. All development proposals must meet the highest environmental standards. Project that would result in unacceptable impacts to a listed TSC will not be approved. The Queensland Government will not recommend for approval a project or activity that is inconsistent with a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for a listed TSC; will have regard for any approved conservation advice in relation to a listed TSC when assessing a project; and will not accept a project that will result in unacceptable impacts to a listed TSC. The Queensland Government will prioritise actions to recover species, taking into account national recovery plans, threat abatement plans and conservation advice (Commitment 12), and will continue to work with the Australian Government and other states and territories to achieve consistent national listing of threatened species (Commitment 13). Amendments to the Vegetation Management Act in May 2013 were introduced to balance agricultural production with environmental protection. The changes retained key environmental protections and landholders are not able to clear land indiscriminately. The reef watercourse protections remain in place and land clearing practices are extensively monitored to ensure they are appropriate.

Migratory species Some submitters were concerned about the The Queensland Government is committed to the



projected condition for migratory species as poor, and raised concerns about the data presented in the draft strategic assessment reports. Comments included criticism that the analysis of migratory species in the GBR coastal zone was limited to birds and it should be extended to include those in the marine zone; perceived anomalies in the assessments of extent, condition and trends in relation to migratory species and their habitat; and the need for improved mapping of migratory species and their habitat.

survival and conservation status of migratory species and that the habitat they rely on is promoted and enhanced. The Queensland Government will not approve a project or activity that is inconsistent with a recovery plan, threat abatement plan or the requirements of the EPBC Act in relation to migratory species; and not recommend for approval a project that will result in unacceptable impacts to migratory species or an area of important habitat for migratory species. Comments relating to the information presented in the draft strategic assessment reports have been considered and further information or additional detail provided in both the revised Program Report and/or this Supplementary Report. Specific information relating to migratory species in the marine zone is also addressed in the strategic assessment reports prepared by GBRMPA.

Ramsar wetlands Some submitters called for a greater emphasis on the protection of Ramsar wetlands and the need for tailored policies and programs to protect them. Some commented on the data used to report on the condition and trend of Ramsar wetlands in the GBR coastal zone. Other specific comments included calls for the recognition of Ramsar wetlands in legislation; the recognition of wetlands in the Caley Valley and Fitzroy Delta as Ramsar wetlands; and the need for a broader assessment of wetlands in Queensland to assist the analysis of the overall health of the GBR.

The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring the ecological character of Ramsar wetlands are maintained and protected. The Queensland Government will not recommend for approval a project that contravenes a plan of management for a Ramsar wetland or would result in unacceptable impacts on a Ramsar wetland, and ensure there are no unacceptable impacts to Ramsar wetlands from proposed developments that undertake an EIS process under the Program. Commitments 20 and 21 detail how the Queensland Government will continue to support the



Queensland Wetlands Program and other programs that improve the OUV of the Wet Tropics WHA. The State Planning Policy (SPP) also protects GBR wetlands by ensuring development is regulated to prevent the loss or degradation of wetland environmental values, and ensuring wetlands continue to function. Comments relating to the information presented in the draft strategic assessment reports have been considered and further information or additional detail provided in both the revised Program Report and/or this Supplementary Report.

Specific protected matters / OUV attributes

OUV Some submitters raised concerns about the general decline in the GBRWHA’s outstanding universal value (OUV) and the impact of particular projects on OUV. Some questioned the ability of the Queensland Program to protect MNES and OUV while the difficulty of offsetting OUV was noted. Other submitters suggested the need for a clear framework of responsibility for OUV and that management actions be undertaken to protect OUV.

The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring the OUV of the GBRWHA is protected and conserved for future generations. Queensland will utilise and direct project proponents to consider the Australian Government EPBC Act referral guidelines for the OUV of the GBRWHA. Key legislation reflects the requirements of the EPBC Act by ensuring that specific consideration be given to MNES and OUV under EIS assessment processes and enable planning activities to consider MNES and OUV. These EIS processes apply the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy. The application of project conditions are designed to ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on MNES and OUV. The Queensland Government is working to strengthen the identification and enhanced assessment of MNES and OUV. This includes the



development of guidelines for assessing impacts on MNES (Commitment 6), the use of the Australian Government’s ‘Protected Matters Search Tool’ (Commitment 10), and ensuring that conditions addressing MNES and OUV are incorporated into approval recommendations (Commitment 11).

Ecosystem health Some submitters noted the decline in overall health of the GBR ecosystem south of Cooktown and suggested this coincided with greater development and human use of the southern coast. Some stated that the resilience of the entire GBR system had been eroded as a result and suggested greater collaboration between levels of government to reverse the declining trend.

The Queensland Government is committed to improving the ecosystem health of the GBR. Each year, the Queensland Government invests approximately $35 million in programs and initiatives aimed at the protection of the GBR. This investment includes support for the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, regional Natural Resource Management groups, the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership, the Queensland Wetlands Program, joint field management programs with the Australian Government and GBRMPA, Indigenous management programs, fisheries management programs, scientific and research projects, and enforcement and compliance actions. The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will include an outcomes-based framework for the GBRWHA that contains desired outcomes and targets for promoting overall ecosystem health (Commitment 29).

Turtles and dugongs Some submitters raised concerns about the potential impacts of development on turtle and dugong populations. Some cited impacts from fishing practices; a decline in seagrass; light pollution; boat strikes; destruction of nesting areas and feeding

The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring turtle and dugong populations in the GBR coastal zone are identified, protected and conserved.



habitat; illegal trade and traditional hunting. Some submitters stated there is a need for coordinated action to protect turtles and dugongs and some stated current management arrangements were inadequate.

As part of the Australian Government’s Reef 2050 Plan, the Queensland Government will work with the Australian Government and Traditional Owners on a Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan. The plan will improve protection of dugong and turtle populations in Far North Queensland and the Torres Strait Islands from the threats of poaching, illegal hunting and marine debris. The Australian and Queensland governments are also working with Traditional Owner communities and funding a program to help stop environmental damage from feral pigs with the aim of protecting turtle populations along the Queensland coast. The program will utilise Traditional Owner knowledge to identify key turtle nesting sites that will be considered priority areas for feral pig control efforts.

Mahogany glider Some submitters raised concerns about the assessment of the mahogany glider presented in the draft strategic assessment reports. Some stated that there was a lack of references or sources in the assessment, and some considered the statements about habitat distribution and condition and trend to be unsubstantiated. Submitters considered that using land use and conservation status as proxies for determining condition and trend was not adequate given the range of threats to the glider, including the impact of cyclones on habitat, weeds, grazing, invasive species, vegetation changes and habitat fragmentation which were not taken into account. Some submitters suggested that active conservation

The Queensland Government is committed to the survival and conservation status of listed TSCs and ensuring their status is promoted and enhanced. The Queensland Government will not recommend for approval a project or activity that is inconsistent with a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for a listed TSC; or that will result in unacceptable impacts to a listed TSC. The Queensland Government will prioritise actions to recover species, taking into account national recovery plans, threat abatement plans and conservation advice (Commitment 12). Accordingly, the Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan is currently being jointly reviewed by the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection



management and the further implementation of the Mahogany Glider Recovery Plan was the best way to protect the mahogany glider.

(DEHP) and DOE. An updated Plan is likely to be finalised by the end of 2014. Comments relating to the information presented in the draft strategic assessment reports have been considered and further information or additional detail provided in the revised Program Report and/or this Supplementary Report.

Cassowary Similar to the mahogany glider comments, some submitters had reservations about the assessment of the cassowary presented in the draft strategic assessment reports. Submitters commented that the cassowary is subject to a range of threats, including road kills, habitat fragmentation, disease, weeds, climate change and attacks by dogs which were not referenced in the GBR coastal zone draft strategic assessment reports. Some submitters noted concerns about ongoing coastal development as well as alleging that large amounts of cassowary habitat clearing have occurred as part of recent cyclone ‘clean-ups’. Implementation of the Cassowary Recovery Plan was cited as the best way forward to protect the cassowary.

The Queensland Government is committed to the survival and conservation status of listed TSCs and ensuring their status is promoted and enhanced. The Queensland Government will not recommend for approval a project or activity that is inconsistent with a recovery plan or threat abatement plan for a listed TSC; or that will result in unacceptable impacts to a listed TSC. The Queensland Government will prioritise actions to recover species, taking into account national recovery plans, threat abatement plans and conservation advice (Commitment 12). Accordingly, the Cassowary Recovery Plan is currently being jointly reviewed by DEHP and DOE. An updated Plan is likely to be finalised by the end of 2014. Comments relating to the information presented in the draft strategic assessment reports have been considered and further information or additional detail provided in the revised Program Report and/or this Supplementary Report.

Coral reefs and seagrass

Some submitters raised concerns about the health of coral reefs in the GBR, citing recent coral cover loss

The Queensland Government will continue to fund and support the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan



and the decline of inshore and mid-shelf reefs. Some called for measures to improve water quality in the GBR and others cited impacts from terrestrial pollution, crown of thorns starfish, fishing, ocean acidification and carbon dioxide production. Some submitters raised concerns about the health and resilience of seagrass, with suggestions that water quality in the GBR needs to be improved to protect seagrass. Some were concerned about the effect of the loss of seagrass on turtles and dugongs, while others commented that seagrass was recovering in Gladstone Harbour as a result of recently implemented best-practice monitoring actions.

to help achieve the long-term goal of no detrimental impact from the quality of water entering the GBR (Commitments 33 and 34). Feedback and comments received on the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan will be considered as part of the Reef Plan’s ongoing operations and activities. The next review of Reef Plan is due to occur by 2018 and suggestions to expand its scope to sources of pollutants other than broadscale land use will be considered at that time. The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will include an outcomes-based framework that contains desired outcomes and targets for protecting the GBR (Commitment 29).

Other MNES/OUV attributes

Some submitters raised concerns about the general health of a number of specific MNES and OUV attributes, such as fish, dolphins, whales, terrestrial and migratory birds, bats and flying foxes. These submitters commented on the information presented in the draft strategic assessment reports or stated that there was insufficient information. Some also cited particular impacts and/or called for enhanced management actions to map, monitor and protect these MNES/OUV attributes.

The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring that all MNES and the OUV of the GBR is protected and conserved. Queensland will direct project proponents to consider the EPBC Act guidelines, including for the OUV of the GBRWHA. The Queensland Government is strengthening management of GBR coastal zone through commitments aimed at the better identification and enhanced assessment of MNES and OUV. This includes the development of guidelines for assessing impacts on MNES (Commitment 6), the use of the Australian Government’s ‘Protected Matters Search Tool’ (Commitment 10), and ensuring that conditions addressing MNES and OUV are incorporated into approval



recommendations (Commitment 11).

Terrestrial issues and drivers

Port development and associated dredging

Some submitters discussed port development, including dredging and spoil relocation, and stated that these topics were not adequately covered in both Queensland and GBRMPA’s draft strategic assessment reports. Some called for a more comprehensive discussion of ports, including their historical presence on the Queensland coast and their importance for regional economies and Australia’s trade prospects. Others raised concerns that potential impacts from port development were not highlighted enough in the reports, including anchorages and anchor drag, coal dust, marine rubbish, noise and light, altering tidal flows, dredging, release of contaminants, water quality and habitat destruction and degradation. Some submitters requested certainty around the future of port and industrial development in the GBR, and supported the consolidation of port infrastructure, best practice port management and maximising the use of current port precincts before expansion into new areas. Some submitters stated that the draft Queensland Ports Strategy did not adequately respond to the threats to the GBR and called for any ports-related legislation to have explicit consideration of environmental factors. Some supported a ban on port development along the GBR coast while the strategic assessment was being undertaken, while many others were

The Queensland Ports Strategy (QPS) is the Queensland Government’s blueprint for managing and improving the efficiency and environmental management of the state’s port network over the next 10 years (Commitment 4). The QPS includes a commitment by the Queensland Government to concentrate port development to within the long-established major port areas within or adjoining the GBRWHA (that is the ports of Abbot Point; Gladstone; Hay Point and Mackay; and Townsville). The QPS also prohibits dredging within and adjoining the GBRWHA, for the development of new or the expansion of existing port facilities outside of priority port development areas for the next 10 years (to 2024). The QPS requires the development of port master plans that will contain an environmental management framework to manage land and marine-based environmental values including MNES, OUV, Matters of State Environmental Significance and cumulative impacts. Preparing these rigorous master plans will become a statutory requirement for the major bulk commodity ports. By early 2015, the Queensland Government will introduce legislative changes into Parliament to secure the commitment to major port reform. This legislation will regulate future port development in a coordinated and responsible manner.



concerned about recent Australian Government and GBRMPA decisions regarding port development at the Port of Abbot Point. Some also highlighted concerns about potential port developments in Keppel Bay, Fitzroy, Port Alma and Cape York (Wongai and Princess Charlotte Bay). There was a wide range of opinions regarding dredging and spoil relocation associated with port development. Some submitters considered dredging to be a large threat to the health of the GBR and called for a suspension or moratorium on capital dredging and spoil relocation in the GBRWHA. Some suggested that more research and scientific study is required into the impacts from dredging to assist in informing future regulation and management processes.

A moratorium on port development and dredging approvals was not put in place for natural justice reasons. The Queensland Government has a rigorous development assessment process already in place to manage development and protect the environment.

Urban development Some submitters expressed concerns about increases in coastal populations and tourism developments, while others raised specific concerns about actual or planned coastal development projects and their potential impacts on the GBR. Some submitters discussed impacts from urban run-off, stormwater and sewerage on water quality in the GBR and suggested these issues required a greater management response by all levels of government. It was also suggested that urban run-off, stormwater and sewerage be included as part of the monitoring activities undertaken under the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan.

Key legislation reflects the requirements of the EPBC Act by ensuring that specific consideration be given to MNES and OUV under EIS assessment processes and enable planning activities to consider MNES and OUV. These EIS processes apply the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy. The application of project conditions are designed to ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on MNES and OUV.

The Queensland Government will continue to fund and support the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan to help achieve the long term goal of no detrimental impact from the quality of water entering the GBR (Commitments 33 and 34). Feedback and comments received on the Reef



Water Quality Protection Plan will be considered as part of the Reef Plan’s ongoing operations and activities. The next review of Reef Plan is due to occur by 2018 and suggestions to expand its scope to sources of pollutants other than broadscale land use will be considered at that time. The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will include an outcomes-based framework for the GBRWHA that contains desired outcomes and targets for protecting MNES and OUV (Commitment 29).

Industrial development Some submitters expressed support for the protection of undeveloped areas of the GBR coastal zone by excluding industrial development and implementing ‘no-go’ zones. Some submitters raised concerns about water quality issues from industrial development as well as referenced specific proposed industrial developments proposed in the GBR coastal zone. Some also raised concerns around the impacts of industrial development on particular species and ecological communities in the GBR.

Key legislation reflects the requirements of the EPBC Act by ensuring that specific consideration be given to MNES and OUV under EIS assessment processes and enable planning activities to consider MNES and OUV. These EIS processes apply the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy. The application of project conditions are designed to ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on MNES and OUV. The Queensland Government will continue to fund and support the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan to help achieve the long term goal of no detrimental impact from the quality of water entering the GBR (Commitments 33 and 34). Feedback and comments received on the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan will be considered as part of the Reef Plan’s ongoing operations and activities. The next review of Reef Plan is due to occur by 2018 and suggestions to expand its scope



to sources of pollutants other than broadscale land use will be considered at that time. The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will include an outcomes-based framework for the GBRWHA that contains desired outcomes and targets for protecting MNES and OUV (Commitment 29).

Agriculture Some submitters noted that historical land practices continue to negatively affect the GBR, mainly in regards to poor water quality as a result of agricultural runoff. Some acknowledged the success of the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan in working to improve water quality through better agricultural management practices. Some suggested the Plan should be accelerated and enhanced as a result. Some submitters raised concerns about recent changes to the Vegetation Management Act with regard to clearing on agricultural land. Some also raised concerns about the potential expansion of agriculture, particularly in Cape York, and the impacts this could have on GBR water quality.

Each year, the Queensland Government invests approximately $35 million in programs and initiatives aimed at the protection of the GBR. This investment includes $6 million a year to support on-ground actions through regional Natural Resource Management groups, as well as $5.4 million to support graziers and cane growers to develop best management programs for their farms. Almost $9 million over five years has also been spent on more than 40 research projects to give graziers and cane growers more information and tools so that they can develop an action plan for improvements on their properties. The Queensland Government will continue to fund and support the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan to help achieve the long-term goal of no detrimental impact from the quality of water entering the GBR (Commitments 33 and 34). Feedback and comments received on the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan will be considered as part of the Reef Plan’s ongoing operations and activities. The next review of Reef Plan is due to occur by 2018 and suggestions to expand its scope



to sources of pollutants other than broadscale land use will be considered at that time. Amendments to the Vegetation Management Act in May 2013 were introduced to balance agricultural production with environmental protection. The changes retained key environmental protections and landholders are not able to clear land indiscriminately. The reef watercourse protections remain in place and land clearing practices are extensively monitored to ensure they are appropriate.

Mining Some submitters raised concerns about the impacts of mining activities in GBR catchments with references to particular areas (Fitzroy, Corio Bay, Broadsound-Shoalwater, The Narrows) or particular types of mining (including coal, coal seam gas, shale oil, sand, salt). Some identified impacts from mining activities on poor water quality in the GBR, particularly from planned and ‘emergency’ mine water discharges into inland river systems. Other impacts of mining were also identified, including coal dust, port development and increased shipping. Some submitters were concerned about the growth of the mining and resources industry in Queensland and stated that mining should be restricted or capped in order to protect the GBR. Some also commented on the link between mining and the use of fossil fuels and its potential effect on climate change as a major risk to the GBR.

The Queensland Government prohibits mining activity in the GBRWHA and rigorously conditions any potential downstream impacts from mining activity outside the World Heritage Area. Key legislation reflects the requirements of the EPBC Act by ensuring that specific consideration be given to MNES and OUV under EIS assessment processes and enable planning activities to consider MNES and OUV. These EIS processes apply the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy. The application of project conditions are designed to ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on MNES and OUV. The Queensland Government will continue to fund and support the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan to help achieve the long-term goal of no detrimental impact from the quality of water entering the GBR (Commitments 33 and 34). Feedback and comments received on the Reef



Water Quality Protection Plan will be considered as part of the Reef Plan’s ongoing operations and activities. The next review of Reef Plan is due to occur by 2018 and suggestions to expand its scope to sources of pollutants other than broadscale land use will be considered at that time. Temporary Emission Licences (TELs) temporarily modify specified conditions of an environmental authority to allow mine water discharges to occur if an applicable event or series of events occurs. A flood or bushfire are examples of an applicable event. A TEL does not remove the need for mine operators to manage their sites in accordance with the conditions of their environmental authority or apply retrospectively to contaminant releases. The establishment of TELs was an important part of the Queensland Government’s response to the natural disasters of 2010/11 and the recommendations of the Flood Commission of Inquiry. The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will include an outcomes-based framework for the GBRWHA that contains desired outcomes and targets for protecting MNES and OUV (Commitment 29).

Marine / GBR specific issues and drivers

Fishing and aquaculture Some submitters raised issues relating to fisheries management in the GBR with calls for the need for further information and assessment of commercial and recreational fishers activities in the region. Specific concerns included the impacts of population growth; the total level of extraction from the GBR system; latency in certain fisheries; growth in

The Queensland Government acknowledges feedback received during public consultation and additional information about fisheries management is included in this Supplementary Report. The Queensland Government is currently undertaking a wide-ranging review of fisheries



recreational fishing; the accuracy of reporting processes; and limited available information about spawning aggregations. Some submitters presented information about the community and economic benefits of both recreational and commercial fishing while some submitters raised concerns about traditional use and the regulation of traditional fishing in the GBR. Some raised concerns about the management practices of Fisheries Queensland and suggested there is a need for increased compliance and enforcement activities of both the commercial and recreational sectors. Some submitters stated that the examination of fishing activities in the draft strategic assessment reports needed to be more comprehensive, while others raised concerns about the impacts from aquaculture activities in the GBR.

management in Queensland to deliver a better system for the State’s commercial and recreational fishers. The purpose of the review is to simplify the current management system and promote a sustainable fisheries resource for all Queenslanders. The review will examine the entire approach to fisheries management in Queensland. An independent consultant has been appointed, with guidance from a Ministerial Advisory Committee, and consultation is occurring with commercial, recreational, conservation and Traditional Owner groups. The findings of the review are due to be provided to the Queensland Government by the end of 2014. The Queensland Government will ensure that fisheries are managed for the purpose of ecological sustainability, supported by the ongoing collection of commercial and recreational data through various monitoring programs (Commitment 16). With regard to aquaculture, key legislation reflects the requirements of the EPBC Act by ensuring that specific consideration be given to MNES and OUV under EIS assessment processes and enable planning activities to consider MNES and OUV. These EIS processes apply the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy. The application of project conditions are designed to ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on MNES and OUV.

Tourism/recreation Some submitters highlighted the critical importance The Queensland Government acknowledges the



of the GBR and its world heritage status to the tourism industry, particularly the commercial marine tourism sector. These submitters stated that any major loss of ecological value in the GBR would have significant implications for the tourism industry. Some submitters raised concerns about tourism infrastructure projects in the GBR and stated that there was a need for proposed projects to be carefully assessed and their impacts managed to ensure environmental values are protected. Many tourism-related submitters stated that the interests of the tourism industry and its reliance on the conservation of the GBR should be a high priority for all levels of government.

importance of the GBR for Queensland’s tourism industry. Tourism activities in the GBR are subject to stringent approvals and regulations to ensure they are undertaken sustainably and within strict environmental conditions. Key legislation reflects the requirements of the EPBC Act by ensuring that specific consideration be given to MNES and OUV under EIS assessment processes and enable planning activities to consider MNES and OUV. These EIS processes apply the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy. The application of project conditions are designed to ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on MNES and OUV.

Shipping Some submitters raised concerns about the impacts associated with shipping in the GBR. Specific references were made to groundings and anchorage drags; waste and debris management, the introduction of exotic species, and the potential release of ship-sourced contaminants. The North East Shipping Management Plan currently being developed by the Australian Government in consultation with the Queensland Government was raised by some submitters as an important management tool for managing shipping-related risks within the GBR by both industry and environmental groups. Some submitters stated that the draft strategic

The Queensland Government is committed to reducing the risk of shipping incidents and potential pollution of the marine environment by implementing its responsibilities as part of the North East Shipping Management Group (Commitment 32). The Queensland Government acknowledges feedback received during public consultation and additional information about shipping management is included in this Supplementary Report.



assessment reports did not adequately examine shipping activities and shipping management in the GBR.

Crown-of-thorns starfish (COTS)

Some submitters raised concerns about COTS outbreaks in the GBR and stated that nutrient run-off and poor water quality entering the reef system was to blame. Consequently, these submitters suggested more efforts were needed to improve water quality in general as well as specific actions to combat COTS outbreaks.

The Queensland Government will continue to fund and support the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan to help achieve the long-term goal of no detrimental impact from the quality of water entering the GBR (Commitments 33 and 34). Feedback received on the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan will be considered as part of the Reef Plan’s ongoing operations and activities. The next review of Reef Plan is due to occur by 2018 and suggestions to expand its scope to sources of pollutants other than broadscale land use will be considered at that time. The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will include an outcomes-based framework that contains desired outcomes and targets for protecting the GBR (Commitment 29). The Queensland Government is investing $1 million to control COTS and the Australian Government’s Reef Trust will allocate a further $2 million to be invested with the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre for direct work to help eradicate COTS.

Traditional use Some submitters raised concerns about the information presented in the draft strategic assessment reports about traditional use and sought greater recognition of Traditional Owner cultural heritage and rights and interests enshrined in law.

The Queensland Government acknowledges feedback received during public consultation regarding the importance of the GBR region to traditional owners and traditional uses in the GBR region.



Some submitters called for greater Traditional Owner involvement in the management of the GBR, including increased participation in field management activities and representation on relevant stakeholder groups. Some also stated that there is a need to better protect dugong and turtles given their importance to Traditional Owner culture and traditional economy.

Commitment 14 states the Queensland Government will require project proponents to apply the Australian Government’s guidelines for consulting with Indigenous people in relation to cultural heritage and the management of traditional use. The Australian Government guidelines will be developed in cooperation with Queensland and the State will also explore ways to streamline Indigenous consultation processes between the two governments.

The Queensland Government is committed to providing 40 new Indigenous Land and Sea Rangers in Queensland over three years, bringing the total number of Indigenous Land and Sea Rangers to 80 (Commitment 22). As part of the Australian Government’s Reef 2050 Plan, the Queensland Government will work with the Australian Government and Traditional Owners on a Dugong and Turtle Protection Plan. The plan will work to protect dugong and turtle populations in Far North Queensland and the Torres Strait Islands from the threats of poaching, illegal hunting and marine debris. The Australian and Queensland governments are working with Traditional Owner communities and funding a program to help stop environmental damage from feral pigs with the aim of protecting turtle populations along the Queensland coast. The program will utilise Traditional Owner knowledge to identify key turtle nesting sites that will be



considered priority areas for feral pig control efforts.

Research activities Some submitters supported increased research activities to better understand the overall health of the GBR and how best to improve its current condition and future trend. Some suggested increased funding for these activities with specific references to marine ecosystems, the impacts of contaminated water from rivers flowing into the GBR, Keppel Bay Islands, measures to avoid loss of fish stocks, cumulative impacts on MNES, and opportunities to increase the resilience of the reef following recent extreme weather events. Some submitters stated there is a need for greater integration of monitoring and research efforts by the Australian and Queensland governments. Some called for the development of relationships with research institutions for this purpose and also for a more strategic approach to research activities being undertaken.

Each year, the Queensland Government invests approximately $35 million in programs and initiatives aimed at the protection of the GBR. This investment includes support for the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, regional Natural Resource Management groups, the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership, the Queensland Wetlands Program, joint field management programs with the Australian Government and GBRMPA, Indigenous management programs, fisheries management programs, scientific and research projects, and enforcement and compliance actions. The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will include an outcomes-based framework for the GBRWHA that contains desired outcomes and targets for protecting MNES and OUV (Commitment 29). The LTSP will also establish an integrated monitoring and reporting framework that will coordinate monitoring and reporting activities in the GBR (Commitment 30).

Climate impacts and extreme weather

Some submitters stated that climate impacts and extreme weather events present the most significant risks to the GBR. Some acknowledged statements in the draft strategic assessment reports that climate impacts and extreme weather were outside the report’s scope, while others stated that the reports provided inadequate information about climate impacts and extreme weather. Some submitters raised concerns about the mining

The Queensland Government is committed to managing the impacts of climate impacts on Queensland’s economy, communities, infrastructure and the environment in a responsible and cost-effective way. Current initiatives to build resilience include helping coastal communities better prepare for rising sea levels, storm tide and erosion; providing climate data on rainfall levels and weather patterns to



industry, particular coal mining, and the link between carbon emissions and climate impacts. Some suggested that a project’s potential greenhouse gas emissions and the effect this may have on the GBR should be included in the assessment of the project.

support long-term agricultural productivity; and providing data about projected changes in temperature, rainfall and weather patterns for specific regions including those in the GBR. These measures build on ongoing work by the Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts on climate variability, climate change, and extreme weather.

Catchment run-off Some submitters commented on the risk of sediments flowing into the GBR from agricultural runoff and raised general concerns about associated water quality impacts. Some stated that current management practices regarding catchment runoff are not sufficient to protect the GBR, while some commended the improvements in water quality achieved through agricultural run-off reduction projects such as the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan. Some submitters highlighted potential water quality impacts from urban stormwater, mining and ship-sourced contaminants and suggested that management arrangements for these should be developed and implemented.

Each year, the Queensland Government invests approximately $35 million in programs and initiatives aimed at the protection of the GBR. This investment includes $6 million a year to support on-ground actions through regional Natural Resource Management groups, as well as $5.4 million to support graziers and cane growers to develop best management programs for their farms. Almost $9 million over five years has also been spent on more than 40 research projects to give graziers and cane growers more information and tools so that they can develop an action plan for improvements on their properties. The Queensland Government will continue to fund and support the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan to help achieve the long term goal of no detrimental impact from the quality of water entering the GBR (Commitments 33 and 34). Feedback received on the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan as part of the public consultation are noted and will be considered as part of the Reef Plan’s ongoing operations and activities. The next review of Reef Plan is due to occur by 2018 and suggestions to expand its scope to sources of



pollutants other than broadscale land use will be considered at that time. The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will include an outcomes-based framework for the GBRWHA that contains desired outcomes and targets for protecting MNES and OUV (Commitment 29). The LTSP will also establish an integrated monitoring and reporting framework that will coordinate monitoring and reporting activities in the GBR (Commitment 30).

Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD)

Some submitters supported the application of the principles of ESD as part of the Queensland Program, particularly the precautionary principle and the principle of intergenerational equity. Some submitters suggested the principles of ESD had not been adequately presented in the draft strategic assessment reports and requested clarity on how the Queensland Program applies ESD.

The Queensland Program delivers upon the ESD principles outlined in the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992 (IGAE) of:

the precautionary principle

intergenerational equity

conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity

improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms.

The Queensland Government Program achieves the principles of ESD through decision-making processes that effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations. The Queensland Program, through its administration of EIS processes under key legislation, upholds ESD in assessing projects and



setting conditions for effective environmental management through the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy. The use of this approach ensures that approved projects and activities will not have unacceptable impacts on MNES and OUV in the GBR coastal zone. The Queensland Government acknowledges feedback received during public consultation about ESD and additional information has been provided in both the revised Program Report and this Supplementary Report.

Queensland Reports and Program

Queensland’s draft strategic assessment reports

There was a wide range of comments on the draft Program Report and draft Strategic Assessment Report. Some submitters stated that the draft reports were comprehensive and logical and presented relevant information clearly and concisely. However, some submitters raised concerns about the contents of the draft reports and suggested changes or the inclusion of additional or updated information. Key areas referenced as requiring further examination were cumulative impacts; the assessment of condition and trend; the mapping of MNES; traditional owner cultural heritage; Ramsar sites; and the impacts of certain activities such as port development, shipping and fishing. Specific concerns were also raised about certain information presented and/or the data/tables produced, as well as the reports’ overall conclusions. Some submitters stated that the draft Program

Comments about the contents of the draft Program Report and draft Strategic Assessment Report have been noted and every effort made to ensure Queensland’s final strategic assessment reports consider and address the comments with the aim of achieving endorsement by the Australian Minister for the Environment under the EPBC Act. A revised Program Report and a Supplementary Strategic Assessment Report has been prepared as part of Queensland final strategic assessment documentation and feedback received on the draft reports has been taken into account during their preparation and finalisation. Additional or updated information aimed at addressing feedback has been provided in this Supplementary Report.



Report did not adequately describe recent changes to Queensland legislation and policies regarding vegetation management, access to national parks, and agriculture production doubling by 2040. Some stated the draft report did not reflect a view that the environment is a priority for the Queensland Government. Some submitters raised concerns about the draft strategic assessment reports not being comprehensive and covering all aspects relevant to the overall health of the GBR. Some called for more clarity on the jurisdictional arrangements between the Queensland and Australian governments while others sought greater recognition of the role of local management in GBR management. Some submitters stated that the draft strategic assessment reports did not meet the requirements of the EPBC Act regarding endorsement by the Australian Minister for the Environment.

Queensland Program A wide range of comments were received about the Queensland Program. Many of the comments made by submitters have been detailed in other sections of this table under their specific subject or theme. Some submitters stated that the Program as a whole was not sufficient to protect the GBR and suggested actions or initiatives that they felt would improve or strengthen the Program. These suggestions have been detailed and addressed in other sections of this table.

The Queensland Government appreciates feedback on the Queensland Program as a whole and the suggestions received from the public and stakeholders. All feedback has been considered and further information or additional detail provided in both the revised Program Report and/or this Supplementary Report to address it where appropriate. Specific issues raised by submitters in relation to the Queensland Program as a whole have also been addressed in other sections of this table. The overarching policy intent of the Queensland



Program is to achieve ESD by integrating environmental considerations into Government decision-making processes at all levels. The Queensland Government is committed to ensuring that any development in the GBR coastal zone occurs in a sustainable manner and that unacceptable impacts on MNES do not occur through the Queensland Program. The Queensland Government is working to strengthen its GBR coastal zone management frameworks and the Queensland’s final strategic assessment reports include commitments designed to build on and strengthen the Queensland Program. The Queensland Government is also working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) which will contain targets and outcomes and priority actions to achieve them.

Queensland Ports Strategy

Some submitters were supportive of the development of the QPS, particularly its commitment to establish Priority Port Development Areas (PPDAs) and prohibit dredging for the development of new, or the expansion of existing port facilities to those port areas for the next 10 years. Some submitters raised concerns about the QPS. Concerns raised include location-specific issues such as the Port of Abbot Point and Port of Gladstone; the life of the QPS (10 years) when the Queensland Program is for 25 years; the fact major port developments currently undergoing assessment are exempted from the restrictions on dredging; that the draft QPS lacked detail about major initiatives and

The Queensland Government acknowledges feedback received during public consultation regarding the QPS and additional information has been provided in this Supplementary Report. The QPS is the Queensland Government’s blueprint for managing and improving the efficiency and environmental management of the state’s port network over the next 10 years (Commitment 4). The QPS includes a commitment by the Queensland Government to concentrating port development to within the long-established major port areas within or adjoining the GBRWHA (within the GBR coastal zone the ports of Abbot Point;



included unclear language; and that dredge material associated with development within PPDAs could potentially be approved for dumping outside of PPDAs. Some submitters stated that the draft strategic assessment reports did not provide sufficient information about the QPS and its major initiatives and commitments.

Gladstone; Hay Point and Mackay; and Townsville). The QPS also prohibits dredging within and adjoining the GBRWHA, for the development of new or the expansion of existing port facilities outside of priority port development areas for the next 10 years (to 2024). The QPS requires the development of port master plans will contain an environmental management framework to manage land and marine-based environmental values including MNES, OUV, Matters of State Environmental Significance and cumulative impacts. Preparing these rigorous master plans will become a statutory requirement for the major bulk commodity ports. By early 2015, the Queensland Government will introduce legislative changes into Parliament to secure the commitment to major port reform. This legislation will regulate future port development in a coordinated and responsible manner.

Queensland planning Some submitters indicated support for the inclusion of MNES as a matter of state interest under Queensland’s new State Planning Policy (SPP). The commitment to complete regional plans in the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone where there is a gap was also supported. Some submitters raised concerns that the SPP placed a burden on local government as the entity responsible for initial assessment processes and called for additional resourcing of local governments. Concerns were also raised about recent planning

Queensland’s new SPP came into effect in December 2013. A single SPP provides a consolidated and comprehensive view of the state's interests and provides clarity to local government on making or amending local planning instruments or assessing development applications. The SPP helps streamline assessment and approval processes for local government and empowers them to plan for their own communities. The SPP explicitly states that matters of environmental significance are to be valued and



reforms in Queensland, including the removal of third party and public interest provisions to appeal planning decisions, and the removal of mandatory public consultation processes for some development types.

protected, and the making or amending of a planning scheme by a local government must integrate this state interest by considering MNES and the requirements of the EPBC Act.

Reef Water Quality Protection Plan and joint field management

Some submitters commended the success of the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan as the main policy instrument to manage water quality from broad scale land use in the GBR region. Some stated that it demonstrates the effectiveness of a collaborative approach between government, industry organisations and regional Natural Resource Management bodies. Some submitters called for changes to Reef Plan, including the extension of its scope to other major impacting industries such as urban, industrial, port and mining development. There were also calls for Reef Plan to focus on other significant threats to the GBR such as coral bleaching and COTS outbreaks. Some submitters called for greater investment in Reef Plan on the part of all parties, including increased funding from government, and that the methodology used to determine targets and goals needs to be more clearly demonstrated and scientifically peer-reviewed. Some submitters commented on joint field management programs in the GBR region and raised specific concerns about the adequacy of penalties for non-compliance and repeat offenders, particularly in relation to illegal fishing and poaching.

The Queensland Government will continue to fund and support the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan to help achieve the long term goal of no detrimental impact from the quality of water entering the GBR (Commitments 33 and 34). Feedback and comments received on the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan will be considered as part of the Reef Plan’s ongoing operations and activities. The next review of Reef Plan is due to occur by 2018 and suggestions to expand its scope to sources of pollutants other than broadscale land use will be considered at that time. Commitment 23 details how the Queensland Government will continue to work closely with GBRMPA to increase the implementation of complementary actions across protected area jurisdictions, including the streamlining of assessment and joint permitting processes, the formulation of joint park user policies, and discouraging repeat offending. Commitment 24 states that the Queensland Government will continue to support ongoing joint field management activities with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA. Additionally, the Queensland Government is



Some submitters stated that current field management programs were under resourced and that staffing levels at relevant government agencies were insufficient to carry out compliance and enforcement actions.

working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will establish an integrated monitoring and reporting framework for the GBR (Commitment 30).

Offsets Some submitters indicated support for the alignment of Queensland’s offsets policy with that of the Australian Government. There was also general support for the establishment of a Reef Trust to coordinate the delivery of offsets across the GBR while some submitters called for investment decisions under Reef Trust to be open and publicly accountable via an offsets register. Some submitters raised concerns about types of offsets with some stating that cash-based offsets or research projects as offsets are inadequate. Some stated that a lack of available baseline data brings into question how measurements for offsets and impacts can be determined. A number of submitters stated that offsets should be a last resort rather than standard practice, and some stated that offsets should have a direct benefit to the relevant degraded area (e.g. same bioregion or local government area).There were also calls for offsets to be secured in advance of any project impacts to ensure overall ecological function is maintained.

The Queensland Government is developing a single Environmental Offsets Framework for Queensland, due to commence later in 2014. The framework will replace five existing Queensland Government offset policies, while retaining a focus on environmental protection. It will provide clarity for Queenslanders as a ‘one-stop-shop’ for environmental offsets, clearly establishing what an offset is and how an offset may be delivered. A key part of the framework will be a new Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy which will establish a simplified and more scientific-based approach to determining an offset obligation and provide greater flexibility in offset delivery choices. The policy will apply to prescribed activities regulated under existing legislation and prescribed environmental matters. This more strategic approach will lead to greater benefits for the environment by limiting residual impacts from development on areas possessing significant biodiversity values. The Queensland Government will apply the Australian Government’s EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy until the Queensland Environmental Offsets Framework is finalised (Commitment 7). Offset guidelines that deliver net benefits will be prepared for application by planning and



development decision-makers in consultation with the Australian Government. The Queensland Government will also develop an offsets register to spatially identify areas used as offsets under Queensland legislation and priority areas for future offsets (Commitment 8), and will develop a single Direct Benefit Management Plan for the GBRWHA consistent with the Queensland Environmental Offsets Framework (Commitment 9). Matters relating to Reef Trust, its establishment and future operation are a matter for the Australian Government.

Cumulative impacts Submitters were generally supportive of the commitment to work with the Australian Government to develop guidelines for proponents to consider when assessing cumulative impacts in the GBRWHA. Some submitters stated that there is a need for the guidelines to be based on rigorous research and scientific study. Some called for greater detail about the guidelines and sought more information about how they will define, identify and quantify cumulative impacts, while others raised concerns about the guidelines not being enforceable by legislative. Industry stakeholders requested that they be consulted during the development of the guidelines, and some noted that the master planning guidelines for PPDAs to be developed under the QPS will promote the consideration of cumulative impacts.

The Queensland Government will work with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop guidelines for proponents to consider when assessing cumulative impacts on MNES in the GBRWHA (Commitment 15). Feedback received during the strategic assessment public consultation process will assist in informing the preparation of these guidelines and all matters raised will be considered. Stakeholders will also be consulted during the guidelines’ development. The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will include an outcomes-based framework for the GBRWHA that contains desired outcomes and targets for protecting MNES and OUV (Commitment 29).

Monitoring and compliance

Some acknowledged the success of Reef Plan and stated that its monitoring activities had increased

The Queensland Government will continue to fund and support the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan



understanding of land and catchment management impacts on the GBR. Some submitters stated that monitoring and compliance activities across the GBR need to be enhanced to obtain a greater understanding of the reef’s overall health. Industry stakeholders requested that the findings also be made publicly available for use when preparing project assessments. Some submitters raised concerns about recent monitoring and compliance activities undertaken in relation to Gladstone Harbour.

to help achieve the long-term goal of no detrimental impact from the quality of water entering the GBR (Commitments 33 and 34). Feedback and comments received on the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan will be considered as part of the Reef Plan’s ongoing operations and activities. Commitment 23 details how the Queensland Government will continue to work closely with GBRMPA to increase the implementation of complementary actions across protected area jurisdictions, including the streamlining of assessment and joint permitting processes, the formulation of joint park user policies and discouraging repeat offending. Additionally, the Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28) that will establish an integrated monitoring and reporting framework for the GBR (Commitment 30). The Queensland Government will continue to work with industry and other stakeholders in Gladstone Harbour through the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership to ensure open and accountable management of Gladstone Harbour, including annual reporting on ecosystem health underpinned by monitoring and science (Commitment 31).

Queensland Government governance

Some submitters raised issues of governance under the Queensland Program and suggested the establishment of a steering committee to oversee

In March 2014, the Queensland Government established a stand-alone Environment Taskforce to work on strategic whole-of-government



implementation of the commitments given the range of Queensland Government agencies involved. These submitters also stated that implementation arrangements should include stakeholder consultation. Some submitters raised specific concerns in relation to governance issues and perceived inadequacies on behalf of both the Australian and Queensland governments in monitoring recent activities in Gladstone Harbour.

environmental projects relevant to the GBR. The Taskforce will consolidate and drive strategic environmental policy work and coordinate implementation of initiatives aimed at promoting the protection and management of the GBR. The Queensland Government is working with the Australian Government, including GBRMPA, to develop the LTSP (Commitment 28). The LTSP will rely on a partnership between all levels of government and relevant stakeholders and a Partnership Group has been established to discuss and reach agreement on the plan’s contents. Stakeholder groups will also be invited to identify and implement some of the LTSP’s actions to recognise that a whole-of-community approach is needed to ensure protection of the GBRWHA. This is consistent with the partnership model used for the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan. The Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Forum is overseeing the development and future implementation of the LTSP. It is a forum made up of Australian and Queensland government ministers with environment and natural resource management portfolios. Annual reports on the implementation of the Program commitments and initiatives under the LTSP will be provided to the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Forum. The Queensland Government will continue to work with industry and other stakeholders in Gladstone Harbour through the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership to ensure open and accountable



management of Gladstone Harbour, including annual reporting on ecosystem health underpinned by monitoring and science (Commitment 31).

Recent changes to Queensland legislation and policy

Some submitters raised concerns about recent changes to Queensland’s legislative and regulatory framework and potential impacts on the GBR. Some submitters were concerned about recent changes to the Vegetation Management Act and stated that these will enable more vegetation clearing which could lead to loss of habitat and increased sediment flows into the GBR. Some were concerned about amendments to the Environmental Protection Act which established Temporary Emission Licenses and to the Water Act which remove the requirement for riverine protection permits. These submitters generally considered these changes to be a negative outcome for the protection of MNES and the GBR.

Changes to the Vegetation Management Act in May 2013 were introduced to strike an important balance between agricultural production and environmental protection and to reduce unnecessary regulation and duplication of legislation. The changes retained key environmental protections and landholders are still not able to clear land indiscriminately. The reef watercourse protections in North Queensland remain in place and the Government continues to monitor land clearing practices and enforce tough penalties where breaches have occurred. Temporary Emission Licences (TELs) temporarily modify specified conditions of an environmental authority to allow for a release of certain contaminants to occur if an applicable event or series of events occurs. A flood or bushfire are examples of an applicable event. A TEL does not remove the need for operators to manage their sites in accordance with the conditions of their environmental authority or apply retrospectively to contaminant releases. The establishment of TELs was an important part of the Queensland Government’s response to the natural disasters of 2010/11 and the recommendations of the Flood Commission of Inquiry. The removal of provisions in the Water Act in May 2013 requiring a riverine protection permit means that landholders no longer need to obtain a permit to remove vegetation on a watercourse. There is no



evidence that this has resulted in any large scale clearing of riverine vegetation or has caused significant degradation to watercourses in Queensland.

Environmental Impact Statement process

Some submitters commended the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) processes under the Queensland Program and stated it is rigorous assessment system which identifies environmental values, impacts and commitments by project proponents. However, some submitters stated the process could be enhanced by ensuring EISs are transparent, independently reviewed and held to consistent standards of environmental protection.

Key legislation reflects the requirements of the EPBC Act by ensuring that specific consideration be given to MNES and OUV under EIS assessment processes and enable planning activities to consider MNES and OUV. These EIS processes apply the ‘avoid, mitigate, offset’ hierarchy. The application of project conditions are designed to ensure that there are no unacceptable impacts on MNES and OUV. Feedback on the EIS processes under the Program will be considered as part of the Queensland Government’s ongoing legislative and regulatory review activities.

Individual port developments – Abbot Point

A significant number of submitters raised concerns about the Australian Government’s decision to approve development works at the Port of Abbot Point and associated dredging and spoil relocation activities at a deep-water location. Many of these submitters were community members and stakeholders calling on GBRMPA to not approve a dredging permit for the development works.

The Abbot Point proposal was subject to the most comprehensive state and federal assessment process ever undertaken and 95 environmental conditions have been applied, including the relocation of dredge material well away from coral reefs and other sensitive coastal areas, rigorous water quality and marine life monitoring, and a strict marine and shipping management plan.


Appendix 2: Summary of independent review findings and Queensland Government responses The purpose of the independent review was to provide a rigorous independent assessment of the draft program and strategic assessment reports

to ensure that the documents accurately described and demonstrated the effectiveness of the Program.

The findings of the independent review noted that the reports provided a good presentation of a large body of information. It provided some

suggestions for improvement of the documents to enhance the presentation and to increase the depth and coverage of the assessment.

A number of recommendations in the independent review report were addressed in the draft reports prior to their release for public consultation.

However, the short timeframe between the release of the independent review findings and the release of the draft reports did not allow for all of the

findings to be addressed.

# Reference Comment Action Response

DRAFT Program Report - version as at 13/09/13

1 General

comments

The Program Report is generally well

structured, particularly Chapters 1 to 3.

Where cross references are provided in

the existing documents between the

Program Report and Assessment Report,

they greatly assist the reader with

interpretation of the intended message.

To improve readability and useability for a

wider audience, consideration should be

given to opportunities to include more

specific references to key sections in the

Strategic Assessment Report. For example,

Chapter 4.4 of the Program Report has

strong linkages with Chapters 7.6.4 and

7.6.5 of the Strategic Assessment Report.

Where possible additional referencing was

included prior to the release of the draft

reports for public consultation.

The revised Program Report has been

revised and the Supplementary Report

written to provide supplementary

information to the draft Strategic

Assessment Report with a focus on

addressing comments from the independent

review and public consultation. Both

reports include information on the

commitments made by the Queensland

Government to deliver its Program.

2 General The Program Report refers to the World The inclusion of a brief description of the The brief description regarding the relevant



comments Heritage Committee’s recommendations

in several sections, without providing a

description or background (indicating a

level of assumed knowledge).

background of the World Heritage

Committee’s consideration of the Great

Barrier Reef and the strategic assessment

would enhance understanding for a broad

audience.

WHC’s recommendations has been

provided in Chapter 1 of the Supplementary

Report and Chapter 1 of the revised

Program Report.

3 General

comments

There is some confusion and overlap in

describing Foundational Management,

Strengthened Management and Forward

Commitments. Some of the Forward

Commitments relate to ongoing programs

that have been in place for many years,

and don’t appear to be committing to

anything new (e.g. FC14 – continuation of

support for joint field management

activities). Use of the term ‘proposed

program’ (e.g. on page 15) in the future

tense adds to the confusion about what is

actually in place. Further information on

the legal or policy status of Forward

Commitments would be helpful.

For clarity, it is recommended that:

Chapter 4 – Foundational

Management focus on describing

legislation, policies and programs

that are currently in effect. Ideally a

commencement date should be

provided, particularly when referring

to new or amended measures

introduced recently (i.e. within the

last 12 months) so that a more

accurate baseline can be

determined.

Chapter 5 – Strengthened

Management should focus on

describing proposed new or

amended legislation, policies and

programs currently in draft or

scheduled to be developed within

the life of the Program.

Chapter 6 – Forward Commitments

should focus on new or ongoing

monitoring, reporting, review and

continual improvement strategies,

including timing and resourcing

commitments where possible. It is

understandable that some Forward

Commitments may lack detail at this

Where possible, recommended actions

were addressed prior to the public

consultation process. The revised Program

Report has been rewritten combining

Forward Commitments, Management

Commitments and Recommended

Improvements outlined in the draft Program

Report to clearly present the commitments

under the Queensland Government

Program Chapter 7 of the revised Program

Report and Chapter 5 of the Supplementary

Report include a summary of the Program

commitments.



stage of the Program, but key

objectives should be clear.

4 General

comments

Reference to Matters of State

Environmental Significance (MSES)

mapping in the present tense causes

confusion about the currency of this tool,

which is not yet available.

Give consideration to referencing MSES

mapping in Strengthened Management.

The MSES mapping tool is available on the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) website (www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/about-planning/state-planning-policy-guidance-material.html).

MSES and policy relating to MSES is

included in the State Planning Policy which

came into effect on 2 December 2013.

5 General

comments

The Program Report makes good use of

tables and figures to assist in illustrating

key messages. The majority of tables and

figures are well presented and useful.

However, a small number of tables and

figures do not seem to have a clear

purpose or are not easily understood. For

example, Chapter 2 of the Program

Report, Figure 1 includes the boundaries

of NRM regions, making it difficult to

identify the boundary of the Great Barrier

Reef coastal zone and catchment (the

primary purpose of the figure). This is

prior to any NRM regions being

introduced in the text.

It would be beneficial to show the Natural

Resource Management (NRM) boundaries

on a later figure to avoid confusion, and

simplify Figure 1 to include the Great Barrier

Reef coastal zone and Great Barrier Reef

catchment only.

Separate maps showing NRM boundaries

and catchments were included in the draft

Strategic Assessment Report released for

public consultation.

The Supplementary Report provides a

number of relevant figures and tables to

provide clarity for the reader. It presents

only those tables which are central to the

focus of the Program. The comprehensive

map of the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone

and NRM regions have been included in the

revised Program Report and

Supplementary Report to demonstrate the

geographic area.

6 General

comments

Additional referencing of certain

information presented in the Program

Report would contribute to improving the

validity of the Report. For example, on

page 22 “Protected areas also provide a

stronghold for threatened species.”

A reference for this statement and /or more

specific detail (e.g. percentage of threatened

species currently represented in the

conservation estate) would be beneficial.

Additional referencing has been included

where possible.

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/about-planning/state-planning-policy-guidance-material.html





7 General

comments

There are some aspects of the Program

where a duplication of effort between the

State and Commonwealth seems to exist

(e.g. dugong management).

Explain how this is managed and whether

there is duplication of effort in areas of

overlapping responsibility.

The Queensland Government has a strong

history of joint management of the GBR

with the Australian Government, including

the GBRMPA. An intergovernmental

agreement on the GBR, which articulates

the roles and responsibilities of both

governments, has been in place since

1979, and was updated in 2009.

Chapter 1 of the revised Program Report

and Supplementary Report describes the

management arrangements for the GBR

and how the two governments work

together.

The Reef 2050—Long-Term Sustainability

Plan (LTSP) will also identify management

arrangements for the GBRWHA, as

discussed in Chapter 3 of the revised

Program Report.

8 General

comments

The description of support programs

would benefit from expansion to include

further detail and strengthen the Program

description.

Expand the description of support programs

and clarify that the programs are not

coordinated and integrated with the prime

focus on the health of the Great Barrier

Reef.

Supporting programs for protection of the

GBR are described in Chapter 3 of the


9 Executive

Summary

The statement about restricting significant

port development to within existing port

limits to 2022 may mislead some readers.

Port limits are generally extensive and

substantial expansion could occur within

existing port limits. The magnitude of

“significant development” is also unclear.

It is recommended that further text be added

to clarify that considerable expansion is

possible within existing port limits, but that

new ports won’t be established under the

policy. Where possible, explain what is

meant by “significant” port development

A discussion on ports has been incorporated in Chapter 3 of the Supplementary Report in line with the Queensland Ports Strategy (QPS). A key action under the QPS is the prohibition of dredging within and adjoining the GBRWHA, for the development of new, or the expansion of existing port facilities outside five Priority Port Development Areas (PPDAs), for the next 10 years.



10 Page vi

Program

Report

States that the Australian Government

has direct responsibility for dredge spoil

disposal.

It should be noted that the State also has

responsibility. Examples include through the

issue of marine park permits (which are

jointly assessed) and the issue of licences

and approvals for ERAs.

State processes regarding issuing of

license and approvals for Environmentally

Relevant Activities (ERAs) have been

reflected in Chapter 3.4 of the revised

Program Report.

11 Chapter 2

Introduction

The timeframe for the Program is clearly

specified. Sub-Chapter - 2.4 states that

the specified timeframe for

implementation of the Program is 25

years.

It is recommended that discussion of

Strengthened Management measures and

Forward Commitments should refer to this

timeframe and the likely timing of changed

management arrangements for each

commitment, if this is known.

The implementation status of commitments

is outlined in Chapter 7 of the revised

Program Report.

12 Chapter 4

Foundational

management

Discussions in Sub-Chapter 4.3 could

more clearly differentiate between

measures to “avoid, mitigate and offset”

impacts on MNES and measures to

“avoid, mitigate and offset” impacts on

environmental values that may be aligned

with MNES. As correctly mentioned

elsewhere in Chapter 4, the current

planning framework in Queensland is not

designed to explicitly “identify, avoid,

mitigate and offset” impacts on MNES.

Provide further clarification in the text that

until measures proposed to strengthen

management of MNES are incorporated

more broadly into Queensland’s planning

framework, any benefits to MNES afforded

by the current framework are largely

coincidental. The exception to this would be

in the case of current EIS processes under

the State Development and Public Works

Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act) and

Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act)

which are accredited under the EPBC Act

and therefore provide more explicit

consideration of MNES.


outlines information on Queensland’s

planning activities and EIS processes under

the SDPWO Act and EP Act relating to the

protection of MNES and OUV. The case

studies in Chapter 4 of the Supplementary

Report demonstrate the EIS processes

under the two acts relating to major projects

and the protection of MNES and OUV.

Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of the revised

Program Report specifically address how

the Program operates to protect MNES and

OUV.

13 Chapter 4

Foundational

management

Sub-Chapter 4.4.2 states that

“Queensland’s planning system provides

for consideration of MNES and

environmentally sensitive

areas…”.However, the current planning

framework, which should be described as

part of the foundational management

Text should be amended to clarify any

confusion.


outlines how consideration of MNES occurs

within Queensland’s planning activities and

EIS processes under the SDPWO Act and

EP Act. See note against Comment 12

above for additional information.



arrangements, does not explicitly provide

for consideration of MNES, therefore this

statement could be misleading.

14 Chapter 4

Foundational

management

It is unclear how many trading ports are in

the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone. Page

25 of the Program Report says 10, but

page I-4 of the Abbot Point demonstration

case says there are 11.

Clarify the number of trading ports in the

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone for

consistency.

There are twelve ports in the Great Barrier

Reef coastal zone, 10 of which are

classified as trading ports, one is a

community port (Quintell Beach) and one is

a non-trading port that services the cruise

shipping industry (Cooktown). This and

further information on ports in the Great

Barrier Reef coastal zone is provided in the

draft Strategic Assessment Report in

Chapter 5.2.4.

15 Chapter 4

Foundational

management

The explanations provided for key

legislation governing coastal development

in the Program Report are confusing and

do not clearly define the differences and

interrelationships between these Acts.

There is also a general lack of detail in

relation to key assessment processes and

requirements. In Chapter 4 of the

Program Report, the Table 4 caption

refers to five core pieces of development

legislation but only three pieces of

legislation are illustrated (the SP Act and

EP Act are not shown). The “Assessment”

and “Approval and conditions” lines refer

to the responsible entity, but it may be

more relevant to nominate assessment

and decision criteria so that the reader

can determine the level of consideration

of MNES.

For Sub-Chapter 4.5 a summary table could

be useful to provide a comparison of the five

core pieces of development legislation and

could replace much of this section and

potentially Table 4 or Sub-Chapter 4.5.2.

The table could summarise each Act: the

purpose of the Act, the responsible

authority, typical assessment triggers

(including statutory and voluntary EIS

triggers), common types of development,

assessment process (e.g. EIS or IDAS,

whether it considers MNES or is accredited

under EPBC Act), assessment criteria (e.g.

local planning scheme, SPPs, project

specific TOR and whether these consider

MNES), other functions (e.g. plan making /

development scheme making process) and

relationship with other Acts (e.g. post-EIS

approvals, subsequent exemptions).

Refer to Chapter 3 of the revised Program Report for clarification.

This feedback was noted. The Program has

been amended during finalisation and,

where relevant to the revised Program,

these comments have been addressed.



16 Chapter 4

Foundational

management

Sub-Chapter 4.5.1.6: Table 3 - Other

legislation that minimises impacts on

MNES requires amendment or further

clarification in relation to some key

functions. There are some gaps and

errors in the description of legislation.

Also this Chapter is generally focussed on

development approvals rather than other

legislative tools used to manage the Great

Barrier Reef coastal zone.

Coastal Protection and Management Act

1995: There is no mention of the role in

declaring coastal management districts

(CMDs) and erosion prone areas, nor in

assessment of tidal works and works in

CMDs.

Vegetation Management Act 1999: The

statement “prohibits broad-scale clearing”

requires clarification throughout the report

to confirm that this specifically refers to

broad-scale clearing for agriculture as the

VM Act does not prohibit broad-scale

clearing for all purposes (e.g. exempt

development such as mining activities,

coordinated projects). It is noted that

amendments resulting from the

Vegetation Management Framework

Amendment Act 2013 once in effect later

this year, will also allow some broad-

scale clearing for high value agriculture.

The term ‘Protects remnant vegetation’

could be more accurately described as

regulating the clearing of vegetation to

conserve remnant vegetation.

Nature Conservation Act 1992: The

statement that the Act includes a Dugong

Conservation Plan is not correct. The

previous dugong conservation plan and a

separate conservation plan for dolphins

and whales have been replaced by new

provisions in the Nature Conservation

(Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006.

Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage

This feedback was noted. The Program has

been amended during finalisation and,

where relevant to the revised Program,

these comments have been addressed.



Act 2003 has similar functions as the

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 and

this should be reflected in the table. Key

functions that could be outlined include:

the recognition, protection and

conservation of Torres Strait Islander

cultural heritage, recognition of Torres

Strait Islander ownership of Torres Strait

Islander human remains and cultural

heritage, establishing a duty of care for

activities that may harm Torres Strait

Islander cultural heritage, and

establishing a database and a register for

recording Torres Strait Islander cultural

heritage.

Water Act 2000: does not outline the role

in assessment of development involving

taking or interfering with water, or the role

in regulating the filling and excavation in

watercourses.

Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route)

Management Act 2002: does not outline

the role in declaring pest animals and

plants, management of pest plants,

management of pest plants and animals

on private land as well as state land.

Recreation Areas Management Act 1995

should reference the updated Recreation

Areas Management Act 2006.

There is no mention of the Wild Rivers

Act 2005 or the Queensland Heritage Act

1992

Environmental Protection Act 1994:



Agricultural Environmentally Relevant

Activities (ERAs) are not discussed.

17 Sub-Chapter

4.5.3.1

The Queensland jurisdiction for fisheries

management, including in Commonwealth

waters could be explained. There is also

no mention of recreational fishing, which

is a major activity in the Great Barrier

Reef coastal zone.

Include further detail on the jurisdiction of

Queensland in fisheries management and in

the management of recreational fishing.

Information on fisheries management has

been provided in Chapter 3 of the revised

Program Report and a paper on fisheries in

the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone is in

Appendix 5 of the Supplementary Report.

18 Sub-Chapter

4.5.3.2

The shipping management Sub-Chapter

addresses only traffic management.

Include discussion of other issues such as

the discharge of waste from vessels.

Impacts from shipping are discussed in

Chapter 3 of the Supplementary Report.

Chapter 3 in the revised Program Report

provides information on the Queensland

Government Program regarding shipping

management.

19 General

comments

In-stream waterway barriers and

diversions impacting on natural flow

regimes receive only passing mention

regarding the legislation, policies and

guidelines that relate to these issues.

Include more details, with reference to the

Fisheries Act 1994 and Water Act 2000.

Information on the Fisheries Act 1994 has

been provided in a paper on fisheries in the

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone in

Appendix 5 of the Supplementary Report.

Information on the Water Act 2000 supports

the mitigation of impacts on MNES as

outlined in the draft Program Report

(Chapter 3.5)

20 Chapter 4

Foundational

management

In relation to Chapter 4 the following

amendments are recommended.

Sub-Chapter 4.5.1.1 incorrectly

identifies the Single Assessment and

Referral Agency rather than the State

Assessment and Referral Agency as

responsible for the assessment of

development applications involving

State triggers.

Sub-Chapter 4.5.1.1: The description of

the SP Act does not describe the

References to the State Assessment and Referral Agency in the draft reports were updated prior to the public consultation process. The description of the EP Act in the revised Program Report and Supplementary Report has been amended. Fisheries management is discussed in



community infrastructure designation.

Sub-Chapter 4.5.1.1: The Nature

Conservation Act 1992 and Marine

Parks Act 2004 are stated to have been

integrated with the SP Act. This is not

currently correct as these Acts are not

yet integrated with the SP Act.

Sub-Chapter 4.5.1.3: The description of

the EP Act suggests that ERAs are

assessed under the Act’s EIS process

whereas most ERAs won’t involve an

EIS but rather assessment of an

Environmental Authority application

under the EP Act and possible

development permit under the SP Act.

This could potentially be misleading as

to the level of assessment and

consideration of MNES afforded to

ERAs.

Sub-Chapter 4.5.1.3: Reference to the

EP Act does not mention some key

functions of this Act, including the role

of prescribing ERAs (including

Agricultural ERAs), establishing general

environmental duties, environmental

protection policies and dealing with

contaminated land matters all of which

have some relevance to mitigating

impacts in the Great Barrier Reef

coastal zone.

Sub-Chapter 4.5.1.6: Although

integrated to some extent into the SP

Act, the Coastal Protection and

Chapter 3 of the revised Program Report and in a paper on fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone in Appendix 5 of the Supplementary Report, including the role of the Fisheries Act 1994 in managing Great Barrier Reef coastal zone development.



Management Act 1995 and Fisheries

Act 1994 have a more prominent role in

managing development in the Great

Barrier Reef coastal zone than is

suggested by the discussion in Chapter

4 and may warrant a more detailed

description.

Sub-Chapter 4.8 refers to several ERAs

which are no longer defined as ERAs

(e.g. concrete batching, motor vehicle

works) following amendments to the EP

Act through the Environmental

Protection (Greentape Reduction) and

Other Legislation Amendment Act

2012.

21 Chapter 4

Foundational

management

Sub-Chapter 4.8 – The difference

between responsive and reactive

compliance activities is not well described

and hard to understand. There is also little

information about compliance activities

within marine parks, which would seem

highly relevant to this section.

Provide further details on the number of

patrol days and the risk based compliance

planning process used by GBRMPA and

QPWS. Is the existing investment in

compliance enough to maintain resilience of

the Great Barrier Reef, by reducing illegal

activities?

Further information on the Queensland

Government’s compliance activities,

including reference to marine parks, is

provided in Chapter 4 of the Supplementary

Report

Refer to GBRMPA’s strategic assessment

reports for further information on marine

parks management

22 Chapter 5

Strengthened

Management

Chapter 5 of the Program Report does not

specifically mention the Queensland

Government’s plans to introduce new

planning legislation as part of its overall

reform of the planning and development

system to facilitate “more streamlined

assessment and approval processes, and

remove unnecessary red tape.” This adds

to the confusion about what constitutes

Describe the Queensland Government’s

plans in more detail.

Updated prior to the public consultation

process.



Foundational Management, Strengthened

Management and Forward Commitments.

23 Chapter 5

Strengthened

Management

Sub-Chapter 5.2.2.2 suggests that the

Queensland Ports Strategy will “establish

a master planning framework for

Queensland ports, with consistent

principles for environmental, social and

economic planning” but does not specify

what these principles might be and what

they will be consistent with (will it be the

principles of ESD?). Similarly, this section

refers to “strengthening the effectiveness

of environmental management at ports”

but does not provide any detail on how

this will be achieved.

Provide further detail on specific principles

under the master planning framework.

Provide further detail on how the key actions

identified will be achieved.

The content of the guideline for port master

planning under the QPS is to be developed.

As stated in the QPS, the guideline will

consider relationships beyond traditional

port boundaries, operational, economic,

environmental and social issues including

supply chain connections and surrounding

land uses.

24 Chapter 5

Strengthened

Management

Sub-Chapter 5.2.2.3 indicates that the

proposed Guideline for MNES will

“identify circumstances in which planned

development would be considered to

have an unacceptable or unsustainable

impact on MNES” but does not specify

what these circumstances might be.

Provide further detail. Information, including the purpose and

general content on the proposed MNES

guideline, is provided in Chapter 3 of the


25 Chapter 5

Strengthened

Management

Sub-Chapter 5.2.3 states that “the

approach to assessing projects through

the development assessment process …

has been previously accredited by the

Australian Government”. This statement is

not entirely correct in that not all

development assessment processes in

Queensland are accredited under the

bilateral agreement. Only EIS processes

under the SDPWO Act, EP Act and SP

Amend text to clarify. The revised Program Report addresses this

in Chapter 3.



Act are accredited.

26 Chapter 7

Implementation

and

Governance

In relation to Chapter 7 - Table 12, the

following amendments are recommended.

The Department of State Development,

Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP)

Supporting Policies and Plans should

include the State Development

Assessment Provisions.

The Department of Agriculture,

Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)

responsibilities should include

assessment and approval for works

involving disturbance of marine plants,

development in declared fish habitat

areas and waterway barrier works

under the Fisheries Act 1994 as well as

assessment and approval of certain

ERAs. It is noted that DSDIP through

the State Assessment and Referral

Agency (SARA) is now primarily

responsible for these tasks, however

similar responsibilities are still identified

with the Department of Environment

and Heritage Protection (DEHP) and

the Department of Natural Resources

and Mines (DNRM) even though these

also have been transferred to DSDIP.

There should be consistency and it may

be more accurate to identify that DSDIP

has primary responsibility for these

assessment roles with support from the

other agencies.

Other Legislation should include the Land

Protection (Pest and Stock Route)

Amendments were reflected where possible

in the draft reports prior to public

consultation. See Chapter 2 of the revised

Program Report and Chapter 4 of the

Supplementary Report.



Management Act 2002.

DRAFT Strategic Assessment Report - version current as at 13/09/13

27 General

comments

The glossary definition of cumulative

impacts refers to foreseeable pressures.

On page 4, it says that the assessment

targets emerging risks. However, the

assessment generally only looks at past

and present pressures, trends and

condition.

The report would benefit from consideration

of future trends, or scenarios, and

evaluation of the likely future effectiveness

of the Program in those scenarios.


describes the implementation of the

Program commitments. Chapter 8 of the

revised Program Report outlines the

Queensland Government’s approach to

measuring performance and governance of

the Program. Case studies in Chapter 4 of

the Supplementary Report demonstrate the

operation of the Program through

hypothetical scenarios.

28 General

comments

The description of existing and emerging

risks to the Great Barrier Reef associated

with climate change would be improved

with further expansion.

Some further discussion is recommended

on increasing the resilience of the Great

Barrier Reef in response to climate change,

particularly in light of the 25 year life of the

Program.

Long-term management actions to improve

resilience are outlined in Chapter 3 of the

revised Program Report, in particular the

LTSP and the Reef Water Quality

Protection Plan.

29 General

comments

Ocean acidification is only briefly

mentioned in the reports, and warrants

further discussion in the context of

managing for resilience.

Expand the discussion and assessment of

ocean acidification. The statement on page

78 of the Assessment Report that ocean

acidification “dissolves the calcium

carbonate on reefs” should be revised.

Ocean acidification (which is the water

becoming less alkaline rather than more

acidic) reduces the availability of calcium

ions, thereby reducing calcification, rather

than dissolving reefs.

It is acknowledged that this comment is

correct.

30 General

comments

The Terms of Reference refers to

“matters of MNES including OUV”, but the

methods are fundamentally based on

protected matters search tool results,

Expand consideration of MNES to consider

OUV not picked up by the protected matters

search tool. Discuss any limitations of the

application of these values to the analysis.

The protection of OUV along with MNES is

comprehensively acknowledged throughout

the revised Program Report and

Supplementary Report. The proposed



which do not incorporate a number of

aspects of the Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Area OUV, such as natural

beauty and aesthetics (criterion vii) and

island morphologies (criterion ix).

MNES guidelines, as discussed in Chapter

3 of the revised Program Report, will draw

significantly from the Australian

Government’s OUV guidelines.

31 General

comments

There is limited assessment of the

effectiveness of fisheries management in

the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone,

which is a State Government

responsibility.

Include information on fisheries

management.

Information on fisheries management has

been updated and provided in Appendix 5

of the Supplementary Report.

32 General

comments

When referring to severe weather events

like floods, reference should be made to

the anthropogenic factors in such

impacts, to avoid misinterpretation that

such impacts are solely natural.

Revise and clarify where appropriate. This was clarified in the draft reports prior to

being released for public consultation.

33 General

comments

The assessment lacks a clear and robust

conceptual framework. It purports to use a

driver-activity-impact/pressure - effect

framework (see page 29) but this is not

applied consistently or with any depth of

analysis. There is also a critical part

missing: how the management responses

embodied in the Program address

adverse effects. Logically this would

include interventions at the driver-activity

levels but the approach to avoid-mitigate-

offset appears to focus very much on the

end stages of the process. The lack of a

clearly thought out conceptual framework

is especially apparent in Fig. 5.4-1, which

shows a number of activities and a limited

number of pressures/impacts (nutrient

Explain the causal relationships between

activities and pressures/impacts, including

their relative importance, more clearly.

Leading on from Sub-Chapter 5.4 and

Figure 5.4-1, outline some sort of

conceptual framework that relates the

Program – i.e., specific management

measures to the driver-activity-

pressure/impact hierarchy to show the

interventions target the environmental

impact process. A robust overall conceptual

framework that relates the Program

interventions to the driver-activity-

impact/pressure sequence would also

provide an improved tool to analyse how

robust the Program might be with respect to

foreseeable future changes, since future

Chapter 3.5 of the Supplementary Report

discusses potential impacts of activities

within the scope of the Program to MNES

and OUV. Case studies in Chapter 4 of the

Supplementary Reports demonstrate how

the Program protects MNES and OUV in

hypothetical development scenarios (in

terms of the activities within the scope of

the Program) and discuss the consideration

of development activities and their potential

impacts on MNES and OUV.



and sediment flows, freshwater flows,

algal blooms). Despite the title of Sub-

Chapter 5.4, there are no clear links in the

figure (or accompanying text) to which

activities are most important to which

pressures. Some activities (e.g. shipping)

appear unrelated to the

pressures/impacts shown in the figure,

and a wide range of pressures/impacts

are not included. The absence of fisheries

in the figure reflects the general lack of

attention to fisheries throughout the

assessment. Chapter 6 does not have

clear links with Chapter 5.

scenarios for drivers and activities can be

developed.

34 General

comments

The assessment report describes a Great

Barrier Reef that is in significant decline,

despite the existence of successful

management programs for many years,

such as Reef Plan. Many MNES are in

poor condition or have a declining trend,

despite the efforts of existing

management actions.

Further discussion on the adequacy of

existing management measures is

recommended. Links to the adequacy of

forward management commitments in

addressing the declining condition and trend

are recommended to strengthen the

conclusions of the assessment.

This discussion was updated prior to the

reports being released for public

consultation. The operation of the

Queensland Government Program to

protect MNES and OUV is described in


and Chapter 4 of the Supplementary

Report.

35 General

comments

There are only limited pieces of

information presented on the cultural

heritage values of Indigenous people in

the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone.

While MNES do not appear to strongly

reference cultural heritage values, some

further recognition of the cultural values of

the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone and

of the involvement of traditional owners in

their management would be appropriate.

Cultural heritage values are only given

Expand the consideration of cultural

heritage values, and include a description of

how traditional owners interact with the

Queensland Government when

implementing the Program.

The consideration of cultural heritage

values was updated prior to the reports

being released for public consultation. A

paper on Indigenous issues is provided in

the Appendix 4 of the Supplementary

Report



approximately 2 pages of description.

36 General

comments

Further analysis of existing offsets

arrangements is warranted to provide

evidence for the conclusions in the

assessment.

Provide data on the number of offsets under

the existing Program, their average size and

condition.

The new Environmental Offsets Framework is discussed in Chapter 3 of the Program Report. Until accredited by the Australian Government, the Queensland Government will apply the Australian Government Offsets Policy.

Comprehensive aggregated data is not

readily available.

37 Chapters 4-7 The assessment results are spread

across several Chapters and a summary

would be helpful. There is a large gap

between the description of assessment

methods in Chapter 3 and the

presentation of results in subsequent

Chapters. It is difficult to recall the

methods described in Chapter 3 when

reviewing Chapters 7, 8 and 9.

A summary table providing a complete

representation of all assessment ratings

would also be helpful in visualising the

overall picture. It is also recommended that

consideration be given to presenting only

brief generic methods in Chapter 3, and

describing the methods applying specifically

to each Chapter in that particular Chapter.

This might result in some repetition so would

need to be evaluated further prior to

adoption. The purpose of such restructuring

would be to have the methods readily

available within the same Chapter as the

assessment results, removing the need to

constantly refer back to Chapter 3.

Noted.

38 General

comments

Figure 4.2-1 and 1.4-1 seem to be

identical and repeated.

Evaluate need for both figures. These figures were updated prior to the

public consultation process.

39 General

comments

The strategic assessment has a strong

focus on urban and infrastructure

development. Aspects of the Program not

related to development are given less

emphasis, such as fisheries, aquaculture,

Broaden the focus of the Program and

assessment to consider these activities.

Expand the assessment of ecological

processes.

Activities under the Program (as discussed

in Chapter 1 of the revised Program Report


Report) reflect the mixed use character of

the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone. The



agriculture and tourism. Assessment of

ecological processes is also limited,

except in the case of nitrogen and COTS

outbreaks.

activities include urban development,

industrial development, port development,

shipping, agriculture, tourism and

recreational use and fishing and

aquaculture.

40 General

comments

Analysis of land use is focussed on

protected areas and urban areas, which

collectively comprise approximately 35%

of the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone.

There is little description provided on land

use within the remaining 65%. Agricultural

land use is not broken down or subject to

detailed analysis in the way that other

land uses are.

Provide further information on land uses

within the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone,

with a particular focus on agriculture.

This information was updated and an

infographic developed prior to the reports

being released for public consultation. It

outlines the development activities in the

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone.

41 Chapter 1

Background

Sub-Chapter 1.4 - page 5, the text causes

confusion as to whether the

Commonwealth marine area (Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park) is in or out of

the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone. It is

mentioned in the bullet list of areas to be

included then mentioned again in a

different context in the following sentence.

Clarify the extent to which the

Commonwealth marine area is included.

Commonwealth marine areas are an MNES

within the scope of the Program. Chapter 6

of the revised Program Report and Chapter

4 of the Supplementary Report discuss how

the Program protects Commonwealth

marine areas in relation to impacts of

activities within the scope of the Program.

A case study relating to Commonwealth

marine areas demonstrating the operation

of the Program is in Chapter 4 of the


42 Chapter 1

Background

Sub-Chapter 1.6 - More information on

the accreditation process for actions as

part of the strategic assessment would be

useful. The information provided does not

appear to be correct (in relation to the use

of the term ‘accredit’ rather than

‘endorse’).

Provide further information about the

proposed accreditation or endorsement

process and/or explain how the Program

Report, once approved might be

implemented.

This section was updated prior to the public

consultation process. The strategic

assessment process is clarified in in



Report.



43 Sub-Chapter

1.3

The section titled ‘Objectives and Purpose

of the strategic assessment’ only provides

a high level description of the purpose

and benefits of the strategic assessment.

No objectives are provided.

A series of specific and measureable

objectives in this section would improve

understanding of the aims of the

assessment. These could also be

referenced in the conclusions Chapter, to

demonstrate that the objectives have been

achieved.

As a systems level assessment, the

Queensland Government’s Great Barrier

Reef coastal zone strategic assessment

documentation provides ‘systems level’

outcomes. Further detailed objectives will

be developed as part of the LTSP.

Information on the LTSP is in Chapter 4 of

the Supplementary Report.

44 Page 18 of

Assessment

Report

Improved presentation of historic and

projected population trends in each of the

LGAs would improve the reader’s context

for pressures that may relate to

population changes. This section would

also be enhanced by a summary of

economic contribution by each industry

sector (tourism, agriculture, resources).

The data presented are inconsistent with

respect to the spatial scale covered, direct

vs. total contribution.

Revise where possible to improve the

information provided.

Noted.

45 Page 94 of

Assessment

Report

The map on page 94 is very difficult to

interpret.

Better clarity of boundaries and shading is

recommended.

Noted.

46 Chapter 3

Assessment

and approach

Sub-Chapter 3.5.1 - It would be worth

noting that much shorebird habitat

(feeding and roost sites) is devoid of

vegetation (naturally or cleared). Has this

been considered in the assessment of

environmental values?

Investigate whether this has been

considered and clarify in text.

Noted.

The EIS process under the SDPWO Act

and EP Act, as described in the revised

Program Report, would ensure that all

potential shorebird habitat would be

considered in an assessment of

environmental values under the EIS

processes of these Acts.



47 Chapter 3

Assessment

and approach

The definition of the ‘partially effective’

rating of management effectiveness is

very broad which has led to a large

number of management programs being

rated as ‘partially effective’. This makes it

difficult to assess the true effectiveness of

the Program.

Consider revising the definition, including

another category or providing a qualitative

description of where within the spectrum of

this rating each assessment lies.

Noted.

48 Chapter 3

Assessment

and approach

The selection of threatened species to be

assessed in the Strategic Assessment

Report could be improved with a

reordering of the steps listed in Sub-

Chapter 3.5.

Swapping step 3 with step 4 would focus the

refinement of the potential species to be

assessed on the basis of location before

applying other non-ecological or location

parameters.

This section was updated prior to the public

consultation process.


and Chapter 4 of the Supplementary Report

discuss how the Program protects listed

threatened species from potential impacts

of activities within the scope of the

Program. A case study demonstrating the

operation of the Program relating to listed

threatened species is in Chapter 4 of the


49 Chapter 4,

Table 4.8-2

Migratory species habitat rated as ‘poor’. Re-evaluate rating. The information

presented would support a ‘good’ rating.

This rating was updated prior to the public


50 Chapter 4,

Values of the

Great Barrier

Reef coastal

zone and their

extent,

condition and

trend

The assessment of the trend and

condition of listed species has been

based on the proportion of habitat that is

located in national parks and minimal use

areas, on the assumption that these areas

provide a level of protection that is higher

than non-protected or higher use areas.

While at a landscape scale this approach

is a sound assumption, the assessment of

condition and trend does not recognise

localised threats to listed species.

The ratings for condition and trend shown in

Table 4.7-2 should be reviewed to capture

an assessment of the status of the species

in areas that are outside national parks and

minimal use areas, which are also targeted

by the Program. As the Report is currently

presented, the condition and trend of listed

species and TEC located outside national

parks and minimal use areas does not

appear to be specifically considered and

assessed in the discussion and rating

tables.

Noted. The draft Strategic Assessment Report (SAR) is not being revised. A description of how the Program protects listed threatened species can be found at Chapter 6 of the revised Program Report and Chapter 4 of the Supplementary Report.

Papers with relevant updates on mahogany

gliders and cassowaries are in Appendix 6

and 7 of the Supplementary Report.



For example, the cassowary condition is

shown in Table 4.7-2 as being ‘very good’

and the trend of the species is rated as

‘improving’. The cassowary case study in

Sub-Chapter 7.6.3.1 of the Strategic

Assessment Report describes the factors

that affect the cassowary survival. These

are “the loss, fragmentation and modification

of habitat, vehicle strikes, dog attacks,

human interactions, pigs, disease and

natural catastrophic events”.

51 Chapter 5

Pressures and

impacts on

MNES

Sub-Chapter 5.3.2.3 - Photosystem II

inhibiting herbicides would benefit from an

initial definition or description. Scientists

will understand this term but the general

public may need more of an explanation.

Better define the meaning of photosystem II

herbicides.

Noted.

52 Chapter 5

Pressures and

impacts on

MNES

Sub-Chapter 5.3.5 - Boat strikes are

discussed mainly for dugong, but are

generally more common for marine

turtles, which are also listed species and

MNES. Also artificial light can disorient or

repel nesting adult turtles, as well as

hatchlings.

Include turtles in discussion of risks from

boat strikes as well as dugong. Include

nesting turtles in discussion of risks of

lighting on turtle nesting beaches.

Risks to turtles including from marine traffic

was updated in the draft SAR (Chapter 5)

prior to public comment.

53 Chapter 5,

Table 5.4-1

Bowling Green Bay Ramsar Site is

assessed as High Effect when

considering Loss of Habitat and

Connectivity; Pest and Weed Species.

This rating does not align with the

condition and trend assessment in Sub-

Chapter 4.4.1.

Check information used to determine rating

and revise as necessary.

The rating for ‘loss of habitat and

connectivity’ was updated prior to the public

consultation process to a ‘very low rating’

(draft SAR page 4-94 – Table 4.4.1). It is

acknowledged that the effect of pest and

weed species was not discussed in the draft

SAR Chapter 4.4.1. The rating reflects

information in the Bowling Green Bay



National Park Management Plan.

http://nprsr.qld.gov.au/managing/plans-

strategies/pdf/bowling-green-bay-national-

park-2000.pdf

54 Chapter 5,

Table 5.4-2

Port development and dredging rated as

having a very high effect on water quality,

the same as agriculture. Dredging and

port development are highly regulated

and their impact is local when considered

project by project, as noted in the

Assessment Report on page 168 when

referring to the 2013 Scientific Consensus

Statement. This rating requires further

justification or explanation. If it is based

on the cumulative impacts of ports spread

throughout the Great Barrier Reef, then

this should be highlighted in the

accompanying text.

Review rating for consistency with other

activities and assessments relating to port

development and dredging.

The rating was downgraded in the version

for public consultation to ‘high effect’, the

same as for urban and industrial.

A discussion on ports and dredging,

including potential impacts, is in Chapter 3

of the Supplementary Report. Chapter 3 of

the revised Program Report discusses the

Program’s approach to protecting MNES

and OUV with full consideration of these

activities.

55 Chapter 5,

Table 5.4-2

Land and resource management is rated

as having a very high effect on pests,

weed species and modified fire regimes.

This does not reflect the positive influence

of land resource management on these

issues.

Review rating and revise. The rating of ‘very high’ aligns with

description of land and resource

management activities are on page 5-167 of

the draft SAR.

56 Page 294,

Dugong

Demonstration

Case Snapshot

The ‘effective’ rating is not consistent with

the very poor condition of dugong and

their habitat.

A rating of ‘partially effective’ overall would

be more appropriate, as described in the

detailed Dugong Demonstration Case.

Noted.

57 Chapter 5

Pressures and

impacts on

Pie charts in Figure 5.3-3 need further

explanation and don't match the

accompanying text. For example, the text

says that Wet Tropics is higher risk for

Check accuracy of information in pie charts

and relate to text.

This inaccuracy is noted.

http://nprsr.qld.gov.au/managing/plans-strategies/pdf/bowling-green-bay-national-park-2000.pdf





MNES seagrass than the Fitzroy, but the pie

charts suggest the opposite.

58 Chapter 7

Program

effectiveness

Sub-Chapter 7.6.2 - To what extent has

protection of the Great Barrier Reef

guided the national park acquisition

process for the past 20 years?

Provide information on the past or proposed

plans for national park acquisitions to be

guided by outcomes for the Great Barrier

Reef.

Noted, however this information is not

available.

59 Chapter 7

Program

effectiveness

Sub-Chapter 7.6.3.1 - protected areas are

a real strength of the program, as

explained on page 245 of the Assessment

Report. To achieve their purpose,

protected areas require management, as

noted on page 247 of the Assessment

Report. Sub-Chapter 7.6.4.6 - Table on

page 256 gives "management" a high

grading, yet there is very little information

about how protected areas are managed

in the documents, and in particular, about

the scale or quantum of the investment in

management.

Provide further information on the

effectiveness of protected area

management activities. How actively are

protected areas in the Great Barrier Reef

coastal zone managed? Provide information

to justify the high grading for management.

For example, what proportion of the estate

is subject to active fire and pest

management activities? What is the scale of

such management? Evaluate the

effectiveness of the Program in managing

protected areas and provide a more detailed

assessment of its adequacy in achieving the

benefits assumed by the establishment of

protected areas. Discuss whether current

and future management activities for

marine, island and terrestrial protected

areas are targeted at the material issues for

protection of the Great Barrier Reef and

sufficiently resourced to achieve improved

resilience.

Further information on protected area

management is provided in Chapter 3 of the


60 Chapter 7

Program

effectiveness

It is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness

of the Program without specific

environmental targets, which are only

described for water quality.

Provide further information to justify the

management effectiveness ratings and

focus the descriptions on the outcomes that

are necessary to protect MNES.

Noted, however under a ‘systems-level’

assessment, management effectiveness

was rated against grading statements rather

than specific targets.

61 Chapter 7 The commitment to the development of The Report would benefit from a detailed MSES and policy relating to MSES is



Program

effectiveness

Matters of State Significance (MSES) is a

promising suggestion and a step toward

integration of Queensland and Australian

Government description and assessment

of matters of state and national

environmental significance (Sub-Chapter

7.5.1).

description of how the development of

MSES would be undertaken and how MSES

and MNES would operate to avoid, minimise

impacts and offset unavoidable impacts.

included in the State Planning Policy which

came into effect on 2 December 2013.

Both MNES and MSES are considered in

the EIS process and the QPS’s port master

planning process as outlined in Chapter 3 of

the Supplementary Report.

62 Chapter 8,

Table 8.7-1

The projected condition ratings do not

correspond to the appropriate colours,

making it unclear what the assessments

are.

Revisit rating for ‘GBRWHA, beaches and

coastlines, inshore coral reefs, seagrass

meadows and shorebirds’.

The table in the report released for public

comment does not include a rating for

‘GBRWHA, beaches and coastlines,

inshore coral reefs, seagrass meadows and

shorebirds’.

63 Chapter 9

Adaptive

management

Sub-Chapter 9.3 refers to a long term

strategic plan for the Great Barrier Reef

World Heritage Area to guide joint

management in the future. It is unclear

what the purpose or objectives of this plan

will be.

Is the long-term strategic plan the same as

the long term sustainability plan mentioned

in other sections of the Program Report?

Further clarification in the text is

recommended. Further clarification of the

purpose, objectives and likely content of the

Long-term Sustainability Plan would provide

important context for the reader.

This information was updated prior to the

public consultation process. Discussion and

detail on the LTSP is in Chapter 3 of the


64 Chapter 9

Adaptive

management

The discussion of ESD is very brief and it

is not clear how the principles of ESD are

applied in the Program.

More detailed analysis is recommended of

the principles of ESD and how they are

addressed by the Program. How are the

principles applied in the SP Act?

There is a discussion on ESD and how the

principles are applied in this strategic

assessment in Chapter 2 of the revised

Program Report.

65 Chapter 9

Adaptive

management

There is limited detail in the descriptions

of plans to adapt management to address

risk and uncertainty. Further information

on the priority areas for conservation

would assist in achieving consistency with

the Terms of Reference.

Provide further detail on adaptive

management and priority areas for

conservation.


outlines adaptive management mechanisms

under the Program.

66 Page 27 of The purpose of the diagram showing Review purpose and need for diagram and Noted.



Assessment

Report

boundaries of MNES is not clear. It is

repeated throughout the document. There

are no natural heritage places shown, yet

these are mentioned in text. Some of the

boundaries depicted in the figure are

incorrect.

check the location of boundaries.

67 Page 135 of

Assessment

Report

Refers to only 1800 ha of habitat for

migratory species. This sounds too low.

Check accuracy of figure and revise if

necessary.

Noted.

Through the EIS process habitat for

migratory species will be identified and

considered in decision making as discussed

in Chapter 6 of the revised Program Report


Report.

A case study demonstrating the operation

of the Program relating to listed migratory

species is in Chapter 4 of the


68 Page 21

Assessment

Report

What is the dugong research and

monitoring program?

Include details of this program. Noted. The draft SAR is not being revised.

A description of how the Program protects

listed threatened species can be found at



Report.

69 Page 62 of

Assessment

Report

It is notable that the ports sector was not

included in the Queensland Stakeholder

Reference Group, considering the issues

discussed regarding the impacts and

management of ports.

Include a description of engagement

activities with the ports sector.

This information was updated prior to the

public consultation process to reflect that

the ports sector was engaged as part of the

Stakeholder Reference Group.

70 Page 138 of

Assessment

Report

The text box on nutrients and blooms

appears out of context, without

background on the extent, severity and

Revise to provide further clarity. This text box was updated prior to the

public consultation process.



frequency of such blooms (which are not

particularly common on the Great Barrier

Reef). Also the summary description in

the assessment box refers to volumes of

flow (which are natural). It is the quality of

the discharge that is of concern.

71 General

comments

There is not much detail provided for

some key topics of public interest within

the report. Port development and the

management of dredging and spoil

disposal are given only a brief mention in

the assessment report, despite being an

activity upon which key concerns of the

public and UNESCO have been raised.

There is also little information upon which

to base an assessment of how effective

national and marine park management is

in enhancing resilience in the Great

Barrier Reef coastal zone. While the

management activities are described,

more detail would be useful to indicate to

the reader the extent or magnitude of the

management activities implemented.

More information could be provided on:

Port development and shipping

activities. This could include reference

to the National Assessment

Guidelines for Dredging (NAGD).

Management activities within National

Parks and the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park

Chapter 3 of the Supplementary Report

includes information on port development,

dredging and shipping, with a focus on

potential impacts. Chapter 3 of the revised

Program Report discusses the Program’s

approach to protecting MNES and OUV

with full consideration of these activities.

Information on joint management

arrangements within and adjacent to the

GBRWHA is in Chapter 1 of the revised

Program Report. Information on protected

areas management is provided in Chapter 3

of the revised Program Report.

72 Page 140 of

Assessment

Report

Sub-Chapter 4.9.4 does not present

evidence that demonstrates an impact on

MNES that would support the conclusion

on condition and trend. See also

summary on page 151.

Provide further details of the process of

impact on MNES.

Noted.


contains impact assessments relating to

activities within the scope of the Program.

73 Page 167 of

Assessment

Report

Sub-Chapter 5.2.4.3 would benefit from

the addition of further detail. While it is

agreed that impacts of dredging and

More detailed information is recommended. Chapter 3 of the Supplementary Report

includes information on dredging, with a

focus on potential impacts.



disposal are localised, at least on a

project by project basis, this is a key area

of public interest and a more detailed

description is warranted.

74 Page 168 of

Assessment

Report

Sub-Chapter 5.2.4.4 would benefit from

the addition of further detail. For example

oil spills and groundings are not

specifically mentioned in terms of

shipping risks.

More detailed information is recommended

about the risks of shipping, including oil

spills and groundings.


includes information on shipping, with a

focus on potential impacts.

75 Page 180 of

Assessment

Report

Further explanation of the links between

land use and ecosystem function is

warranted, in the context of the Wet

Tropics region being mostly intact and

subject to effective management, yet

water quality risks are the highest of the

regions.

Provide further explanation of apparent

inconsistency.

Acknowledge the inconsistency in the draft SAR. Chapter 3 of the Supplementary Report contains impact assessments relating to activities within the scope of the Program. Chapter 3 of the revised Program Report discusses the Program’s approach and commitment for the management of the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area. Further information on water quality risks can be found on the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan’s website:

http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/scienti

fic-consensus-statement/water-quality-

risks.aspx

76 Pages 193 and

194 of

Assessment

Report

The assessment process leading to the

tables presented on pages 193 and 194

of the Assessment Report has not been

well explained and doesn’t differentiate

between spatial scales.

Clarify assessment process and consider

spatial scale.

Noted. The draft SAR is not being revised.

77 Pages 48, 237

and 253 of

Assessment

Report

It is unclear what is meant by high

protection marine park zones. Are these

Marine National Park and Conservation

Park Zones? Page 237 of the

Clarify what is meant by these terms in

regard to zoning.

Noted. The draft SAR is not being revised.

http://www.reefplan.qld.gov.au/about/scientific-consensus-statement/water-quality-risks.aspx





Assessment Report also refers to marine

conservation areas in Table 7.6-1. Are

these the same as high protection marine

park zones? See also page 253 of the

Assessment Report where it is stated that

38.7% of the Great Barrier Reef Coast

Marine Park is considered protected?

78 Page 224 of

Assessment

Report

First paragraph of Sub-Chapter 7.3.1

states that the avoid, mitigate, offset

approach is the basis of the Endorsement

Criteria for the Program. However, this is

only part of the Endorsement Criteria. The

remaining Endorsement Criteria are not

systematically covered in the strategic

assessment.

Provide further detail to address the other

Endorsement Criteria.

Information on how the Program meets the

Endorsement Criteria is in Chapter 4 and 5

of the revised Program Report.

79 Page 265 of

Assessment

Report

In Sub-Chapter 7.6.7.2, the description

mostly corresponds to grading statement

for 'Effective' on page 56 (except that it

refers to impacts being 'identified and

considered' rather than 'avoided') but the

grade is 'Partially effective'

Review the assessment and/or associated

description.

The inconsistency in grading has been

noted.

80 Page 281 of

Assessment

Report

There is no grading system for cumulative

impacts defined in the methodology (Sub-

Chapter 3.8, including Table 3.8-1, pages

52-57). Instead cumulative impacts are

considered in the grading statements for

'very effective' and 'partially effective' in

avoiding impacts. With regard to

cumulative impacts, the description on

page 281 (Cumulative impacts are

considered upfront) corresponds to the

grading statement for 'very effective' with

Reassess the grading and description in

Sub-Chapter 7.9.2.

Noted.

The grading statement considered most

applicable was applied.



regard to avoiding impacts.

81 Page 57 of

Assessment

Report

Although the methodology in Table 3.8-1

provides grading statements for

‘resourcing, monitoring, and compliance’,

these components of effectiveness are

not addressed in the assessment.

Consider assessment of these program

effectiveness measures.

Noted.

Monitoring activities, reporting mechanism

and performance measuring and

governance of the Program is outlined in

Chapter 3 and Chapter 8 of the revised

Program Report.

82 Page 230 of

Assessment

Report

More summary text is necessary to

provide evidence for the ‘very effective’

rating of Enhance MNES.

Provide further justification for the rating. Noted. Enhanced management, recovery

and monitoring a one of the strategic

outcomes of the Queensland Program. The

plans and program under this outcome are

discussed in Chapter 3 of the revised

Program Report

83 Page 316 of

Assessment

Report

The colour coding of ratings in Table 8.7-

1 are inconsistent. It is unclear what the

projected condition is meant to be for

some values. The projected condition of

Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is

rated as ‘very poor’, yet some

improvement on the current condition is

predicted in Sub-Chapter 8.2.4.

Check ratings and colours. This table was updated prior to the public


84 Appendices Individual appendices are difficult to

locate and the appendices would benefit

from a table of contents.

Include a table of contents for the

appendices.

Noted.

The Supplementary Report includes a list of

appendices in the table of contents.

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone strategic assessment—Supplementary Report

193

Appendix 3: MNES

World heritage properties

The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

outlines in Part 3 the requirement for approval of activities with a significant impact on a

declared world heritage property.

A person must not take an action that has or is likely to have a significant impact on the

world heritage values of a declared world heritage property.

World heritage properties that could be impacted by activities under the

Program:

Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area

National heritage

The section 15B of the EPBC Act outlines actions that are prohibited without approval.

National heritage places that could be impacted by activities under the Program:

Great Barrier Reef

Wet Tropics of Queensland

Wetlands of international importance

The EPBC Act outlines section 16 states that a person must not take an action that

has, will have, or may have a significant impact on the ecological character of a

declared Ramsar wetland without approval.

Ramsar wetlands that could be impacted by activities under the Program:

Bowling Green Bay

Shoalwater and Corio Bays Area

Listed threatened species and communities

Section 18 of the EPBC Act state that a person must not take an action that has, will

have or is likely to have a significant impact on the following categories of listed

threatened species without approval:

‘Extinct in the wild’

‘Critically endangered’

’Endangered’

‘Vulnerable’


194

Section 18 also states that a person must not take an action that has, will have or is

likely to have a significant impact on the following categories of listed threatened

communities without approval:

‘Critically endangered’

’Endangered’.

Listed threatened species and ecological communities that could be impacted by

activities under the Program

NOTE: CE = Critically Endangered, E = Endangered; all other species listed as

vulnerable.

Birds

o Australasian Bittern (Botaurus poiciloptilus) (E)

o Australian Fairy Tern (Sternula nereis nereis)

o Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) (E)

o Black-breasted Button-quail (Turnix melanogaster)

o Black-browed Albatross (Thalassarche melanophris)

o Black-throated Finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta) (E)

o Buff-breasted Button-quail (Turnix olivii) (E)

o Campbell Albatross (Thalassarche melanophris impavida)

o Chatham Albatross (Thalassarche eremita) (E)

o Coxen's Fig-Parrot (Cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni) (E)

o Crimson Finch (white-bellied) (Neochmia phaeton evangelinae)

o Golden-shouldered Parrot (Psephotus chrysopterygius) (E)

o Gouldian Finch (Erythrura gouldiae) (E)

o Herald Petrel (Pterodroma heraldica) (CE)

o Kermadec Petrel (western) (Pterodroma neglecta neglecta)

o Masked Owl (northern) (Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli)

o Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus)

o Salvin's Albatross (Thalassarche cauta salvini)

o Shy Albatross, Tasmanian Shy Albatross (Thalassarche cauta cauta)

o Southern Cassowary (Australian), Southern Cassowary (Casuarius casuarius

johnsonii) (E)

o Southern Giant-Petrel (Macronectes giganteus) (E)

o Squatter Pigeon (southern) (Geophaps scripta scripta)

o Star Finch (eastern), Star Finch (southern) (Neochmia ruficauda ruficauda) (E)

o White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea), White-bellied Storm-Petrel

(Australasian) (Fregetta grallaria grallaria)

o White-capped Albatross (Thalassarche cauta steadi)


195

o Yellow Chat (Dawson) (Epthianura crocea macgregori) (CE)

Fish

o Honey Blue-eye (Pseudomugil mellis)

o Lake Eacham Rainbowfish (Melanotaenia eachamensis) (E)

o Opal Cling Goby (Stiphodon semoni) (CE)

Frogs

o Armoured Mistfrog (Litoria lorica) (CE)

o Common Mistfrog (Litoria rheocola) (E)

o Kuranda Tree Frog (Litoria myola) (E)

o Lace-eyed Tree Frog (Nyctimystes dayi) (E)

o Mountain Mistfrog (Litoria nyakalensis) (CE)

o Waterfall Frog, Torrent Tree Frog (Litoria nannotis) (E)

Mammals

o Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus) (CE)

o Brush-tailed Rabbit-rat, Brush-tailed Tree-rat, Pakooma (Conilurus

penicillatus)

o Burrowing Bettong (Shark Bay), Boodie (Bettongia lesueur lesueur)

o Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis (large

form)) (E)

o Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)

o Koala (combined populations of Queensland, New South Wales and the

Australian Capital Territory) (Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations

of Qld, NSW and the ACT))

o Large-eared Pied Bat, Large Pied Bat (Chalinolobus dwyeri)

o Mahogany Glider (Petaurus gracilis) (E)

o Northern Bettong (Bettongia tropica) (E)

o Northern Hopping-mouse, Woorrentinta (Notomys aquilo)

o Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) (E)

o Proserpine Rock-wallaby (Petrogale persephone) (E)

o Semon's Leaf-nosed Bat, Greater Wart-nosed Horseshoe-bat (Hipposideros

semoni) (E)

o South-eastern Long-eared Bat (Nyctophilus corbeni)

o Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus)

o Spotted-tailed Quoll or Yarri (North Queensland subspecies) (Dasyurus

maculatus gracilis) (E)

o Water Mouse, False Water Rat, Yirrkoo (Xeromys myoides)


196

Plants (with common names)

o a palm (Hydriastele costata)

o a sedge (Eleocharis retroflexa)

o a shrub (Cyclophyllum costatum)

o an aquatic herb (Aponogeton prolifer) (E)

o an orchid (Cepobaculum carronii)

o an orchid (Durabaculum mirbelianum) (E)

o an orchid (Durabaculum nindii) (E)

o Ant Plant (Myrmecodia beccarii)

o Antelope Orchid (Ceratobium antennatum) (E)

o Black Ironbox (Eucalyptus raveretiana)

o Blue Tassel-fern (Phlegmariurus dalhousieanus) (E)

o Bluegrass (Dichanthium setosum)

o Byfield Matchstick (Comesperma oblongatum)

o Cape York Vanda (Vanda hindsii)

o Cardwell Beard Orchid (Calochilus psednus) (E)

o Cardwell Midge Orchid (Genoplesium tectum) (E)

o Cooktown Orchid (Dendrobium bigibbum)

o Cooktown Orchid (Vappodes phalaenopsis)

o Cossinia (Cossinia australiana) (E)

o Dwarf Butterfly Orchid, Cooktown Orchid (Vappodes lithocola) (E)

o Glen Geddes Bloodwood (Corymbia xanthope)

o Hairy-joint Grass (Arthraxon hispidus)

o Hann Gardenia (Gardenia psidioides)

o Holly-leaved Graptophyllum, Mt Blackwood Holly (Graptophyllum ilicifolium)

o Lesser Swamp-orchid (Phaius australis) (E)

o Miniature Moss-orchid, Hoop Pine Orchid (Bulbophyllum globuliforme)

o Mt Berryman Phebalium (Phebalium distans) (CE)

o Mt Larcom Silk Pod (Parsonsia larcomensis)

o Myola Palm, Myola Archontophoenix (Archontophoenix myolensis) (E)

o Native Moth Orchid (Phalaenopsis rosenstromii) (E)

o Pale Chandelier Orchid (Acriopsis emarginata)

o Rat's Tail Tassel-fern (Phlegmariurus filiformis) (E)

o Rock Tassel-fern, Water Tassel-fern (Phlegmariurus squarrosus) (E)

o Siah's Backbone, Sia's Backbone, Isaac Wood (Streblus pendulinus) (E)


197

o Square Tassel Fern (Phlegmariurus tetrastichoides)

o Swamp Lily, Greater Swamp-orchid (Phaius tancarvilleae) (E)

o Thin Feather Orchid (Tropilis callitrophilis)

o Three-leaved Bosistoa, Heart-leaved Bosistoa, Yellow Satinheart, Heart-leaved

Bonewood (Bosistoa transversa s. Lat.)

o Velvet Jewel Orchid (Zeuxine polygonoides)

o Water Tassel-fern (Phlegmariurus marsupiiformis)

o Wedge-leaf Tuckeroo (Cupaniopsis shirleyana)

o Yarwun Whitewood (Atalaya collina) (E)

Plants (without common names)

o Actephila foetida

o Aponogeton bullosus (E)

o Aponogeton proliferus (E)

o Asplenium wildii

o Cajanus mareebensis (E)

o Calophyllum bicolor

o Canarium acutifolium var. Acutifolium

o Canthium costatum

o Carronia pedicellata (E)

o Cepobaculum carronii

o Cepobaculum johannis

o Chingia australis (E)

o Crepidium lawleri (E)

o Ctenopteris walleri

o Cycas megacarpa (E)

o Cycas ophiolitica (E)

o Cycas silvestris

o Cyperus cephalotes (E)

o Dendrobium lithocola (E)

o Diplazium cordifolium

o Diplazium pallidum (E)

o Dipodium pictum (E)

o Drosera prolifera

o Durabaculum mirbelianum (E)

o Durabaculum nindii (E)


198

o Eleocharis retroflexa

o Endiandra cooperana (E)

o Eremochloa muricata (E)

o Fimbristylis adjuncta (E)

o Gardenia actinocarpa (E)

o Germainia capitata

o Grammitis reinwardtii

o Gulubia costata

o Huperzia lockyeri

o Marsdenia brevifolia

o Medicosma obovata

o Myriophyllum coronatum

o Neisosperma kilneri

o Neoroepera buxifolia

o Omphalea celata

o Oreodendron biflorum

o Ozothamnus eriocephalus

o Phaius pictus

o Pimelea leptospermoides

o Plectranthus gratus

o Polyscias bellendenkerensis

o Pultenaea setulosa

o Quassia bidwillii

o Rhinerrhizopsis matutina

o Ristantia gouldii

o Sankowskya stipularis (E)

o Sarcochilus roseus

o Sauropus macranthus

o Syzygium velarum

o Tephrosia leveillei

o Toechima pterocarpum (E)

o Vrydagzynea paludosa (E)

o Xanthostemon formosus (E)

Reptiles

o Collared Delma (Delma torquata)


199

o Dunmall's Snake (Furina dunmalli)

o Fitzroy River Turtle, Fitzroy Tortoise, Fitzroy Turtle, White-eyed River Diver

(Rheodytes leukops)

o Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus)

o Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas)

o Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)

o Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth (Dermochelys coriacea) (E)

o Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) (E)

o Olive Ridley Turtle, Pacific Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) (E)

o Ornamental Snake (Denisonia maculata)

o Yakka Skink (Egernia rugosa)

Sharks

o Dwarf Sawfish, Queensland Sawfish (Pristis clavata)

o Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias)

o Green Sawfish, Dindagubba, Narrowsnout Sawfish (Pristis zijsron)

o Grey Nurse Shark (east coast population) (Carcharias taurus (east coast

population)) (CE)

o Largetooth Sawfish, Freshwater Sawfish, River Sawfish, Leichhardt's Sawfish,

Northern Sawfish (Pristis pristis)

o Speartooth Shark (Glyphis glyphis) (CE)

o Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus)

Whales

o Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) (E)

o Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

o Southern Right Whale (Eubalaena australis) (E)

Ecological Communities

o Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla dominant and co-dominant) (E)

o Broad leaf tea-tree (Melaleuca viridiflora) woodlands in high rainfall coastal

north Queensland (E)

o Coolibah - Black Box Woodlands of the Darling Riverine Plains and the

Brigalow Belt South Bioregions (E)

o Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia (CE)

o Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia (CE)

o Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and

Nandewar Bioregions (E)

o Weeping Myall Woodlands (E)


200

Listed migratory species

Section 20 of the EPBC Act requires approval of activities that has or will have or is

likely to have a significant impact on a listed migratory species.

Listed migratory species that could be impacted by activities under the Program:

NOTE: * Denotes that species is also a listed threatened species.

Birds

o Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica)

o Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica)

o Black-browed Albatross (Thalassarche melanophris)*

o Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis)

o Black-naped Tern (Sterna sumatrana)

o Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa)

o Black-winged Monarch (Monarcha frater)

o Bridled Tern (Sterna anaethetus)

o Broad-billed Sandpiper (Limicola falcinellus)

o Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster)

o Campbell Albatross (Thalassarche impavida)*

o Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia)

o Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis)

o Chatham Albatross (Thalassarche eremita)*

o Common Noddy (Anous stolidus)

o Common Sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos)

o Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea)

o Double-banded Plover (Charadrius bicinctus)

o Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis)

o Eastern Great Egret , White Egret (Egretta alba)

o Flesh-footed Shearwater, Fleshy-footed Shearwater (Puffinus carneipes)

o Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus)

o Great Frigatebird, Greater Frigatebird (Fregata minor)

o Great Knot (Calidris tenuirostris)

o Greater Sand Plover, Large Sand Plover (Charadrius leschenaultii)

o Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola)

o Grey-tailed Tattler (Heteroscelus brevipes)

o Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii)

o Lesser Crested Tern (Sterna bengalensis)


201

o Lesser Frigatebird, Least Frigatebird (Fregata ariel)

o Lesser Sand Plover, Mongolian Plover (Charadrius mongolus)

o Little Curlew, Little Whimbrel (Numenius minutus)

o Little Tern (Sterna albifrons)

o Marsh Sandpiper, Little Greenshank (Tringa stagnatilis)

o Masked Booby (Sula dactylatra)

o Oriental Plover, Oriental Dotterel (Charadrius veredus)

o Pacific Golden Plover (Pluvialis fulva)

o Painted Snipe (Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato))*

o Pin-tailed Snipe (Gallinago stenura)

o Rainbow Bee-eater (Merops ornatus)

o Red Knot, Knot (Calidris canutus)

o Red-footed Booby (Sula sula)

o Red-necked Stint (Calidris ruficollis)

o Roseate Tern (Sterna dougallii)

o Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres)

o Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons)

o Salvin's Albatross (Thalassarche salvini)*

o Sanderling (Calidris alba)

o Sarus Crane (Grus antigone)

o Satin Flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca)

o Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (Calidris acuminata)


o Southern Giant-Petrel (Macronectes giganteus)*

o Spectacled Monarch (Symposiachrus trivirgatus)

o Streaked Shearwater (Calonectris leucomelas)

o Terek Sandpiper (Xenus cinereus)

o Wedge-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus pacificus)

o Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus)

o White-bellied Sea-Eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster)

o White-capped Albatross (Thalassarche steadi)

o White-throated Needletail (Hirundapus caudacutus)

o Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola)

Dugong (Dugong dugon)

Other Cetaceans


202

o Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis)

o Irrawaddy Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni)

Reptiles

o Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus)*

o Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas)*

o Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata)*

o Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth (Dermochelys coriacea)*

o Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta)*

o Olive Ridley Turtle, Pacific Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea)*

o Salt-water Crocodile, Estuarine Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus)

Sharks

o Giant Manta Ray, Chevron Manta Ray, Pacific Manta Ray, Pelagic Manta Ray,

Oceanic Manta Ray (Manta birostris)

o Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias)*

o Longfin Mako (Isurus paucus)

o Porbeagle, Mackerel Shark (Lamna nasus)

o Shortfin Mako, Mako Shark (Isurus oxyrinchus)

o Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus)*

Whales

o Antarctic Minke Whale, Dark-shoulder Minke Whale (Balaenoptera

bonaerensis)

o Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus)*

o Bryde's Whale (Balaenoptera edeni)

o Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)*

o Killer Whale, Orca (Orcinus orca)

o Southern Right Whale (Eubalaena australis)*

o Sperm Whale (Physeter macrocephalus)

Commonwealth marine areas

The EPBC Act outlines in Part 3 the requirement for approval of activities in

Commonwealth marine areas affecting the environment.

A person must not take in a Commonwealth marine area an action that has, will have

or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment.

A person must not take outside a Commonwealth marine area but in the Australian

jurisdiction an action that has or will have a significant impact on the environment in a

Commonwealth marine area or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment

in a Commonwealth marine area.


203

Fishing in State or Territory waters managed by Commonwealth:

A person must not take in the coastal waters (as defined in the Fisheries Management

Act 1991) of a State or the Northern Territory an action that is fishing (as defined in the

Fisheries Management Act 1991); and is included in the class of activities forming a

fishery (as defined in that Act) that is managed under the law of the Commonwealth as

a result of an agreement made under section 71 or 72 of that Act before the

commencement of this section; and that has or will have, or is likely to have a

significant impact on the environment in those coastal waters.

Listed marine species that may be impacted by activities under the Program:

Birds

o Australian Pratincole (Stiltia isabella)



o Black Noddy (Anous minutus)






o Black-winged Petrel (Pterodroma nigripennis)

o Black-winged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus)




o Campbell Albatross (Thalassarche impavida)



o Chatham Albatross (Thalassarche eremita)



o Crested Tern (Sterna bergii)







204

o Great Egret, White Egret (Ardea alba)











o Little Ringed Plover (Charadrius dubius)


o Magpie Goose (Anseranas semipalmata)




o Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)


o Painted Snipe (Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato))

o Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos)




o Red-capped Plover (Charadrius ruficapillus)


o Red-necked Avocet (Recurvirostra novaehollandiae)


o Red-tailed Tropicbird (Phaethon rubricauda)



o Ruff (Reeve) (Philomachus pugnax)





205




o Silver Gull (Larus novaehollandiae)

o Southern Giant-Petrel (Macronectes giganteus)

o Spectacled Monarch (Monarcha trivirgatus)


o Swinhoe's Snipe (Gallinago megala)


o Wandering Tattler (Heteroscelus incanus)








Fish

o Anderson's Pipefish, Shortnose Pipefish (Micrognathus andersonii)

o Australian Messmate Pipefish, Banded Pipefish (Corythoichthys intestinalis)

o Banded Pipefish, Ringed Pipefish (Doryrhamphus dactyliophorus)

o Barred Short-bodied Pipefish, Girdled Pipefish (Choeroichthys cinctus)

o Beady Pipefish, Steep-nosed Pipefish (Hippichthys penicillus)

o Belly-barred Pipefish, Banded Freshwater Pipefish (Hippichthys spicifer)

o Bentstick Pipefish, Bend Stick Pipefish, Short-tailed Pipefish (Trachyrhamphus

bicoarctatus)

o Blue-speckled Pipefish, Blue-spotted Pipefish (Hippichthys cyanospilos)

o Bluestripe Pipefish, Indian Blue-stripe Pipefish, Pacific Blue-stripe Pipefish

(Doryrhamphus excisus)

o Brock's Pipefish (Halicampus brocki)

o Cleaner Pipefish, Janss' Pipefish (Doryrhamphus janssi)

o D'Arros Pipefish (Cosmocampus darrosanus)

o Davao Pughead Pipefish (Bulbonaricus davaoensis)

o Double-end Pipehorse, Double-ended Pipehorse, Alligator Pipefish

(Syngnathoides biaculeatus)


206

o Duncker's Pipehorse (Solegnathus dunckeri)

o Fijian Banded Pipefish, Brown-banded Pipefish (Corythoichthys amplexus)

o Flagtail Pipefish, Masthead Island Pipefish (Doryrhamphus negrosensis)

o Flat-face Seahorse (Hippocampus planifrons)

o Gibbs' Pipefish (Festucalex gibbsi)

o Girdled Pipefish (Festucalex cinctus)

o Glittering Pipefish (Halicampus nitidus)

o Hairy Pipefish (Urocampus carinirostris)

o Hedgehog Seahorse (Hippocampus spinosissimus)

o Javelin Pipefish (Lissocampus runa)

o Kellogg's Seahorse, Great Seahorse (Hippocampus kelloggi)

o Madura Pipefish, Reticulated Freshwater Pipefish (Hippichthys heptagonus)

o Manado Pipefish, Manado River Pipefish (Microphis manadensis)

o Maxweber's Pipefish (Cosmocampus maxweberi)

o Mother-of-pearl Pipefish (Vanacampus margaritifer)

o Mud Pipefish, Gray's Pipefish (Halicampus grayi)

o Offshore Pipefish (Micrognathus natans)

o Orange-spotted Pipefish, Ocellated Pipefish (Corythoichthys ocellatus)

o Ornate Ghostpipefish, Harlequin Ghost Pipefish, Ornate Ghost Pipefish

(Solenostomus paradoxus)

o Pacific Short-bodied Pipefish, Short-bodied Pipefish (Choeroichthys

brachysoma)

o Painted Pipefish, Reef Pipefish (Nannocampus pictus)

o Pale-blotched Pipefish, Spined Pipefish (Phoxocampus diacanthus)

o Pallid Pipehorse, Hardwick's Pipehorse (Solegnathus hardwickii)

o Paxton's Pipefish (Corythoichthys paxtoni)

o Pig-snouted Pipefish (Choeroichthys suillus)

o Pygmy Seahorse (Hippocampus bargibanti)

o Red-hair Pipefish, Duncker's Pipefish (Halicampus dunckeri)

o Reef-top Pipefish (Corythoichthys haematopterus)

o Reticulate Pipefish, Yellow-banded Pipefish, Network Pipefish (Corythoichthys

flavofasciatus)

o Ribboned Pipehorse, Ribboned Seadragon (Haliichthys taeniophorus)

o Robust Ghostpipefish, Blue-finned Ghost Pipefish, (Solenostomus cyanopterus)

o Samoan Pipefish (Halicampus mataafae)

o Sawtooth Pipefish (Maroubra perserrata)


207

o Schultz's Pipefish (Corythoichthys schultzi)

o Sculptured Pipefish (Choeroichthys sculptus)

o Shortpouch Pygmy Pipehorse (Acentronura tentaculata)

o Short-tail Pipefish, Short-tailed River Pipefish (Microphis brachyurus)

o Softcoral Pipefish, Soft-coral Pipefish (Siokunichthys breviceps)

o Spiny Pipehorse, Australian Spiny Pipehorse (Solegnathus spinosissimus)

o Spiny Seahorse, Thorny Seahorse (Hippocampus histrix)

o Spiny-snout Pipefish (Halicampus spinirostris)

o Spotted Seahorse, Yellow Seahorse (Hippocampus kuda)

o Straightstick Pipefish, Long-nosed Pipefish, Straight Stick Pipefish

(Trachyrhamphus longirostris)

o Thorntail Pipefish, Thorn-tailed Pipefish (Micrognathus brevirostris)

o Three-keel Pipefish (Campichthys tricarinatus)

o Tiger Pipefish (Filicampus tigris)

o Tryon's Pipefish (Campichthys tryoni)

o Western Spiny Seahorse, Narrow-bellied Seahorse (Hippocampus angustus)

o Whiskered Pipefish, Ornate Pipefish (Halicampus macrorhynchus)

o White's Seahorse, Crowned Seahorse, Sydney Seahorse (Hippocampus whitei)

o Widebody Pipefish, Wide-bodied Pipefish, Black Pipefish (Stigmatopora nigra)

o Zebra Seahorse (Hippocampus zebra)

Reptiles

o a sea krait (Laticauda colubrina)

o a sea krait (Laticauda laticaudata)

o a seasnake (Hydrophis vorisi)

o Beaked Seasnake (Enhydrina schistosa)

o Black-banded Robust Seasnake (Hydrophis melanosoma)

o Black-headed Seasnake (Hydrophis atriceps)

o Dubois' Seasnake (Aipysurus duboisii)

o Elegant Seasnake (Hydrophis elegans)


o Freshwater Crocodile, Johnston's Crocodile, Johnston's River Crocodile

(Crocodylus johnstoni)



o Horned Seasnake (Acalyptophis peronii)


208

o Large-headed Seasnake (Hydrophis pacificus)

o Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth (Dermochelys coriacea)

o Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta)

o Olive Ridley Turtle, Pacific Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea)

o Olive Seasnake (Aipysurus laevis)

o Olive-headed Seasnake (Disteira major)


o Slender Seasnake (Hydrophis gracilis)

o Small-headed Seasnake (Hydrophis mcdowelli)

o Spectacled Seasnake (Disteira kingii)

o Spine-bellied Seasnake (Lapemis hardwickii)

o Spine-tailed Seasnake (Aipysurus eydouxii)

o Spotted Seasnake, Ornate Reef Seasnake (Hydrophis ornatus)

o Stokes' Seasnake (Astrotia stokesii)

o Turtle-headed Seasnake (Emydocephalus annulatus)

o Yellow-bellied Seasnake (Pelamis platurus)

Listed cetaceans (protected by Division 3, Part 13 of the EPBC Act) that may be

impacted by Activities under the Program include:

NOTE: Listed cetaceans which are limited to those cetaceans which are not otherwise

listed threatened, migratory or marine species

o Blainville's Beaked Whale, Dense-beaked Whale (Mesoplodon densirostris)

o Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus (sensu stricto))

o Common Dolphin, Short-beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis)

o Cuvier's Beaked Whale, Goose-beaked Whale (Ziphius cavirostris)

o Dwarf Sperm Whale (Kogia simus)

o False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens)

o Fraser's Dolphin, Sarawak Dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei)

o Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphin, Spotted Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops

aduncus)

o Long-snouted Spinner Dolphin (Stenella longirostris)

o Melon-headed Whale (Peponocephala electra)

o Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)

o Pygmy Killer Whale (Feresa attenuata)

o Pygmy Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps)

o Risso's Dolphin, Grampus (Grampus griseus)

o Rough-toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanensis)


209

o Short-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus)

o Spotted Dolphin, Pantropical Spotted Dolphin (Stenella attenuata)

o Strap-toothed Beaked Whale, Strap-toothed Whale, Layard's Beaked Whale

(Mesoplodon layardii)

o Striped Dolphin, Euphrosyne Dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba)

Commonwealth Heritage places

The EPBC Act outlines in Part 3 the requirement for approval of actions with significant

impact on Commonwealth Heritage places.

A person must not take an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant

impact on the environment in a Commonwealth Heritage place.

Commonwealth Heritage places that could be impacted by activities under the

Program:

ABC Radio Studios

Dent Island Lightstation

Lady Elliot Island Lightstation

Low Island and Low Islets Lightstation

North Reef Lightstation

Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area

Tully Training Area


210

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The EPBC Act outlines in Part 3 the requirement for approval of activities in the

GBRMP affecting the environment.

A person must not take in the GBRMP an action that has, will have or is likely to have a

significant impact on the environment.

A person must not take an action outside the GBRMP but in the Australian jurisdiction

that has, will or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment in the GBRMP.

Listed marine species that may be impacted by activities under the Program:

Birds

o Australian Pratincole (Stiltia isabella)



o Black Noddy (Anous minutus)






o Black-winged Petrel (Pterodroma nigripennis)

o Black-winged Stilt (Himantopus himantopus)




o Campbell Albatross (Thalassarche impavida)



o Chatham Albatross (Thalassarche eremita)



o Crested Tern (Sterna bergii)







211

o Great Egret, White Egret (Ardea alba)











o Little Ringed Plover (Charadrius dubius)


o Magpie Goose (Anseranas semipalmata)




o Osprey (Pandion haliaetus)


o Painted Snipe (Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato))

o Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos)




o Red-capped Plover (Charadrius ruficapillus)


o Red-necked Avocet (Recurvirostra novaehollandiae)


o Red-tailed Tropicbird (Phaethon rubricauda)



o Ruff (Reeve) (Philomachus pugnax)





212




o Silver Gull (Larus novaehollandiae)

o Southern Giant-Petrel (Macronectes giganteus)

o Spectacled Monarch (Monarcha trivirgatus)


o Swinhoe's Snipe (Gallinago megala)


o Wandering Tattler (Heteroscelus incanus)








Fish

o Anderson's Pipefish, Shortnose Pipefish (Micrognathus andersonii)

o Australian Messmate Pipefish, Banded Pipefish (Corythoichthys intestinalis)

o Banded Pipefish, Ringed Pipefish (Doryrhamphus dactyliophorus)

o Barred Short-bodied Pipefish, Girdled Pipefish (Choeroichthys cinctus)

o Beady Pipefish, Steep-nosed Pipefish (Hippichthys penicillus)

o Belly-barred Pipefish, Banded Freshwater Pipefish (Hippichthys spicifer)

o Bentstick Pipefish, Bend Stick Pipefish, Short-tailed Pipefish (Trachyrhamphus

bicoarctatus)

o Blue-speckled Pipefish, Blue-spotted Pipefish (Hippichthys cyanospilos)

o Bluestripe Pipefish, Indian Blue-stripe Pipefish, Pacific Blue-stripe Pipefish

(Doryrhamphus excisus)

o Brock's Pipefish (Halicampus brocki)

o Cleaner Pipefish, Janss' Pipefish (Doryrhamphus janssi)

o D'Arros Pipefish (Cosmocampus darrosanus)

o Davao Pughead Pipefish (Bulbonaricus davaoensis)

o Double-end Pipehorse, Double-ended Pipehorse, Alligator Pipefish

(Syngnathoides biaculeatus)


213

o Duncker's Pipehorse (Solegnathus dunckeri)

o Fijian Banded Pipefish, Brown-banded Pipefish (Corythoichthys amplexus)

o Flagtail Pipefish, Masthead Island Pipefish (Doryrhamphus negrosensis)

o Flat-face Seahorse (Hippocampus planifrons)

o Gibbs' Pipefish (Festucalex gibbsi)

o Girdled Pipefish (Festucalex cinctus)

o Glittering Pipefish (Halicampus nitidus)

o Hairy Pipefish (Urocampus carinirostris)

o Hedgehog Seahorse (Hippocampus spinosissimus)

o Javelin Pipefish (Lissocampus runa)

o Kellogg's Seahorse, Great Seahorse (Hippocampus kelloggi)

o Madura Pipefish, Reticulated Freshwater Pipefish (Hippichthys heptagonus)

o Manado Pipefish, Manado River Pipefish (Microphis manadensis)

o Maxweber's Pipefish (Cosmocampus maxweberi)

o Mother-of-pearl Pipefish (Vanacampus margaritifer)

o Mud Pipefish, Gray's Pipefish (Halicampus grayi)

o Offshore Pipefish (Micrognathus natans)

o Orange-spotted Pipefish, Ocellated Pipefish (Corythoichthys ocellatus)

o Ornate Ghostpipefish, Harlequin Ghost Pipefish, Ornate Ghost Pipefish

(Solenostomus paradoxus)

o Pacific Short-bodied Pipefish, Short-bodied Pipefish (Choeroichthys

brachysoma)

o Painted Pipefish, Reef Pipefish (Nannocampus pictus)

o Pale-blotched Pipefish, Spined Pipefish (Phoxocampus diacanthus)

o Pallid Pipehorse, Hardwick's Pipehorse (Solegnathus hardwickii)

o Paxton's Pipefish (Corythoichthys paxtoni)

o Pig-snouted Pipefish (Choeroichthys suillus)

o Pygmy Seahorse (Hippocampus bargibanti)

o Red-hair Pipefish, Duncker's Pipefish (Halicampus dunckeri)

o Reef-top Pipefish (Corythoichthys haematopterus)

o Reticulate Pipefish, Yellow-banded Pipefish, Network Pipefish (Corythoichthys

flavofasciatus)

o Ribboned Pipehorse, Ribboned Seadragon (Haliichthys taeniophorus)

o Robust Ghostpipefish, Blue-finned Ghost Pipefish, (Solenostomus cyanopterus)

o Samoan Pipefish (Halicampus mataafae)

o Sawtooth Pipefish (Maroubra perserrata)


214

o Schultz's Pipefish (Corythoichthys schultzi)

o Sculptured Pipefish (Choeroichthys sculptus)

o Shortpouch Pygmy Pipehorse (Acentronura tentaculata)

o Short-tail Pipefish, Short-tailed River Pipefish (Microphis brachyurus)

o Softcoral Pipefish, Soft-coral Pipefish (Siokunichthys breviceps)

o Spiny Pipehorse, Australian Spiny Pipehorse (Solegnathus spinosissimus)

o Spiny Seahorse, Thorny Seahorse (Hippocampus histrix)

o Spiny-snout Pipefish (Halicampus spinirostris)

o Spotted Seahorse, Yellow Seahorse (Hippocampus kuda)

o Straightstick Pipefish, Long-nosed Pipefish, Straight Stick Pipefish

(Trachyrhamphus longirostris)

o Thorntail Pipefish, Thorn-tailed Pipefish (Micrognathus brevirostris)

o Three-keel Pipefish (Campichthys tricarinatus)

o Tiger Pipefish (Filicampus tigris)

o Tryon's Pipefish (Campichthys tryoni)

o Western Spiny Seahorse, Narrow-bellied Seahorse (Hippocampus angustus)

o Whiskered Pipefish, Ornate Pipefish (Halicampus macrorhynchus)

o White's Seahorse, Crowned Seahorse, Sydney Seahorse (Hippocampus whitei)

o Widebody Pipefish, Wide-bodied Pipefish, Black Pipefish (Stigmatopora nigra)

o Zebra Seahorse (Hippocampus zebra)

Reptiles

o a sea krait (Laticauda colubrina)

o a sea krait (Laticauda laticaudata)

o a seasnake (Hydrophis vorisi)

o Beaked Seasnake (Enhydrina schistosa)

o Black-banded Robust Seasnake (Hydrophis melanosoma)

o Black-headed Seasnake (Hydrophis atriceps)

o Dubois' Seasnake (Aipysurus duboisii)

o Elegant Seasnake (Hydrophis elegans)


o Freshwater Crocodile, Johnston's Crocodile, Johnston's River Crocodile

(Crocodylus johnstoni)



o Horned Seasnake (Acalyptophis peronii)


215

o Large-headed Seasnake (Hydrophis pacificus)

o Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth (Dermochelys coriacea)

o Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta)

o Olive Ridley Turtle, Pacific Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea)

o Olive Seasnake (Aipysurus laevis)

o Olive-headed Seasnake (Disteira major)


o Slender Seasnake (Hydrophis gracilis)

o Small-headed Seasnake (Hydrophis mcdowelli)

o Spectacled Seasnake (Disteira kingii)

o Spine-bellied Seasnake (Lapemis hardwickii)

o Spine-tailed Seasnake (Aipysurus eydouxii)

o Spotted Seasnake, Ornate Reef Seasnake (Hydrophis ornatus)

o Stokes' Seasnake (Astrotia stokesii)

o Turtle-headed Seasnake (Emydocephalus annulatus)

o Yellow-bellied Seasnake (Pelamis platurus)

Listed cetaceans (protected by Division 3, Part 13 of the EPBC Act) that may be

impacted by activities under the Program include:

NOTE: Listed cetaceans which are limited to those cetaceans which are not otherwise

listed threatened, migratory or marine species

o Blainville's Beaked Whale, Dense-beaked Whale (Mesoplodon densirostris)

o Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops truncatus (sensu stricto))

o Common Dolphin, Short-beaked Common Dolphin (Delphinus delphis)

o Cuvier's Beaked Whale, Goose-beaked Whale (Ziphius cavirostris)

o Dwarf Sperm Whale (Kogia simus)

o False Killer Whale (Pseudorca crassidens)

o Fraser's Dolphin, Sarawak Dolphin (Lagenodelphis hosei)

o Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphin, Spotted Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops

aduncus)

o Long-snouted Spinner Dolphin (Stenella longirostris)

o Melon-headed Whale (Peponocephala electra)

o Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata)

o Pygmy Killer Whale (Feresa attenuata)

o Pygmy Sperm Whale (Kogia breviceps)

o Risso's Dolphin, Grampus (Grampus griseus)

o Rough-toothed Dolphin (Steno bredanensis)


216

o Short-finned Pilot Whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus)

o Spotted Dolphin, Pantropical Spotted Dolphin (Stenella attenuata)

o Strap-toothed Beaked Whale, Strap-toothed Whale, Layard's Beaked Whale

(Mesoplodon layardii)

o Striped Dolphin, Euphrosyne Dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba)

Commonwealth Heritage places

The EPBC Act outlines in Part 3 the requirement for approval of actions with significant

impact on Commonwealth Heritage places.

A person must not take an action that has, will have or is likely to have a significant

impact on the environment in a Commonwealth Heritage place.

Commonwealth Heritage places that could be impacted by activities under the

Program:

ABC Radio Studios

Dent Island Lightstation

Lady Elliot Island Lightstation

Low Island and Low Islets Lightstation

North Reef Lightstation

Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area

Tully Training Area

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone strategic assessment —Supplementary Report

217

Appendix 4: Traditional Owners within the GBR coastal zone Introduction

The Terms of Reference for the GBR coastal zone strategic assessment include

Endorsement Criteria that require that the strategic assessment:

recognises the role of Indigenous peoples in the conservation and ecologically

sustainable use of Australia’s biodiversity

promotes the use of Indigenous people’s knowledge of biodiversity with

involvement of, and in co-operation with, the owners of the knowledge.

The Australian Government commissioned Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) to undertake an

independent review of the draft reports for the GBR coastal zone strategic assessment

in October 2013. This review found that:

‘The description of the distribution, significance and management of

Indigenous cultural values of the Great Barrier Reef could be further

expanded to provide greater recognition of the role played by Indigenous

peoples in the management of their traditional lands and sea-country.

While it is recognised that the four world heritage listing criteria for the

Great Barrier Reef relate to natural heritage, some further description of

the cultural landscapes and heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef

and their management by traditional owners would seem warranted

given the depth and breadth of the Strategic Assessment and the limited

description provided in the draft documents.’

The independent review also recommended the following action:

‘Expand the consideration of cultural heritage values, and include a

description of how traditional owners interact with the Queensland

Government when implementing the Program.’

Feedback provided through the public consultation process that was undertaken on the

draft strategic assessment reports prepared by the Queensland Government and the

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) also sought greater recognition of

Traditional Owner cultural heritage, including rights and interests enshrined in law.

This Supplementary Report therefore provides additional information on Traditional

Owner cultural heritage values and the involvement of Traditional Owners in the

management of environmental values in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR).

Traditional Owners and the strategic assessment

Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have enduring spiritual and

cultural connections to the natural environment. As the Traditional Owners of

Australia’s natural environment, their connection to their land and sea country spans

thousands of years.

The GBR region is home to approximately 70 Traditional Owner groups, all with unique

connections and heritage values related to the reef and GBR coastal zone, and these


218

groups are located along the Queensland coast from the eastern Torres Strait Islands

in the north to near Bundaberg in the south.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are inextricably linked to their land and sea

country through their living culture and traditions, including their stories and song lines,

sites of cultural significance and important saltwater ceremonies. Aboriginal peoples

have a well-developed knowledge about the natural world.

Traditional knowledge is a critical component in the conservation and ecologically

sustainable use of Queensland’s biodiversity. The diversity of traditional knowledge

also means it can fulfil multiple purposes from the regulation of natural resources

based on cultural practices and belief, to the maintenance of culturally and biologically

significant sites. When combined with modern techniques, traditional knowledge can

enhance the identification and preservation of sites that have high biological and/or

ecological value, making traditional knowledge invaluable for protecting the GBR

coastal zone.

The Queensland Government’s GBR coastal zone strategic assessment relates to

matters of land and coast as distinct from the GBRMPA’s strategic assessment, which

relates to marine matters. This arbitrary distinction between the two programs has been

problematic when attempting to address matters of Traditional Owners’ involvement in

the management of the reef. For many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

there is a seamless flow between natural and cultural values and their land and sea

estates and jurisdictional boundaries are often not recognised as a result.

There are both similarities and differences between the ways Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander groups use the land and sea in their customary practices. Each group

has their own distinctive culture and identity, and often within groups there are many

more clans and kinship groups whose discrete characteristics further distinguish one

from the other.

Contemporary Indigenous use

Activities such as hunting, fishing and gathering have a significant role in the cultural

life and economy of Indigenous communities in the GBR region. In remote locations,

Indigenous peoples continue to rely on marine resources for a substantial part of their

diet. Seafood consumption by Torres Strait Islanders on the Island of Mer for example

is among the highest in the world11. This finding is consistent with numerous studies of

the contribution of subsistence activities to Indigenous peoples’ socio-economic

welfare. Beyond subsistence fishing, marine resources within the GBR region also

support cultural values.

Turtle and dugong hunting is an important aspect of the Indigenous economy and

cultural life in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) and is based on

collectively accumulated ecological knowledge, skills and continued cultural association

with the species12. GBRMP zoning plans require dugong and turtle hunting permits

which are granted to Indigenous peoples for customary purposes. However, permits

11

Neitschmann, B., 1983, Traditional Sea Territories, Resources and Rights in Torres Strait, In A Sea of Small Boats (ed J. Cordell), Cultural Survival Inc. Cambridge, Mass.

12 Williams, R., 1996, Who’s listening and Who’s learning? Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander knowledge of turtle and dugong in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park regions, Ecopolitics IX Conference Perspectives on Indigenous Peoples Management of Environmental Resources: papers and resolutions, Northern Land Council, Casuarinam,113-117.


219

may not be required under section 211 of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) in some areas

where “native title rights and interests exist.”

Little is known about the current status of Indigenous fishing and shell collecting in the

GBRWHA in terms of effort, impact on the sustainability of resources and contribution

to local and regional gross value of fisheries production13. It is also unclear how

significant the contribution of subsistence fishing is to overall fisheries production.

A survey undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1994 indicated that 11

per cent of the 49 500 Indigenous people involved in unpaid work engaged in hunting,

fishing and gathering14. A recent study of subsistence activities on Cape York

Peninsula indicates that as much as 80 per cent of protein is derived from fishing and

hunting. This is a significant contribution to the diet, health and economy of people in

remote communities where the availability of alternative food items is irregular and

often of poorer quality. Some economic analyses of Indigenous fishing have been

undertaken in the Torres Strait15 and Cape York Peninsula16. These studies show that

subsistence activities contribute a significant part of the household income.

Information on the level of subsistence fishing and hunting in urban areas is yet to be

investigated, although anecdotal evidence suggests that it may be substantial and

linked to the importance of seafood in the diet of Indigenous peoples as well as being a

culturally significant activity.

Recognition of Traditional Owner rights and interests

Native title is the recognition by Australian common law that Indigenous groups have

rights and interests to their land under their traditional laws and customs. Native title

rights and interests may include rights to:

live on the area

access the area for traditional purposes, such as camping or conducting

ceremonies

visit and protect important places and sites

hunt, fish and gather food or traditional resources such as water, wood and

ochre

teach law and custom on country.

In some areas, native title has been deemed to be extinguished, such as on freehold

land, but in other areas, native title may continue to be active and recognised in law by

the Federal Court of Australia.

The Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth) sets up processes to determine where native title

exists, how future activity impacting upon native title may be undertaken, and to

provide compensation where native title is impaired or extinguished. The Act gives

13

Altman, J., Arthur WS., and Bek, H., 1994, ‘Indigenous participation in commercial fisheries in Torres Strait: a preliminary discussion’, CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 73. Centre forAboriginal Economic Policy.

14 Madden, R., 1995, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey 1994: Detailed Findings. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

15 Altman, J., Arthur WS., and Bek, H., 1994, ‘Indigenous participation in commercial fisheries in Torres Strait: a preliminary discussion’, CAEPR Discussion Paper No. 73. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy.

16 Asafu-Adjaye, J., 1994, ‘Cape York Land use Strategy: Traditional activities project report’, Indigenous management of land and sea project and traditional activities project: Draft report to the Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy, (ed. J Cordell), Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Queensland, St Lucia.


220

Indigenous Australians who hold native title rights and interests—or who have made a

native title claim—the right to be consulted and, in some cases, to participate in

decisions about activities proposed to be undertaken on the land. Indigenous

Australians have been able to negotiate benefits for their communities through native

title, including in relation to employment opportunities and cultural heritage protection.

Cultural heritage is made up of tangible and intangible elements of all cultural

practices, resources and knowledge developed, nurtured and defined by Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander people. Traditional Owners express their cultural heritage through

their relationships with country, people, beliefs, knowledge, law and lore, language,

symbols, ways of living, sea, land and objects, all of which arise from their spirituality.

Heritage values have been passed down through generations and to others as part of

expressing their cultural and spiritual identity.

Legally recognising the rights of Traditional Owners to access and use their traditional

Country and resources is an important aspect of Indigenous cultural heritage. As part

of the Program, legislation is in place to recognise and protect Indigenous cultural

heritage in Queensland, including the GBR region:

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003

Torres Strait Islander Cultural Heritage Act 2003

The main purpose of these Acts is to provide effective recognition, protection and

conservation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage in Queensland.

The Acts define Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage as anything that is:

a significant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander area in Queensland; or

a significant Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander object in Queensland; or

evidence of archaeological or historic significance, of Aboriginal or Torres Strait

Islander occupation of an area of Queensland.

An area or object is significant because of either or both of the following:

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander tradition

the history including contemporary history of any Aboriginal or Torres Strait

Islander party for the area.

The Acts:

provide blanket protection of areas and objects of traditional, customary, and

archaeological significance

recognise the key role of Traditional Owners in cultural heritage matters

establish practical and flexible processes for dealing with cultural heritage in a

timely manner.

The Queensland Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural

Affairs (DATSIMA) maintains a cultural heritage database and register of recorded

cultural heritage places. Cultural heritage sites do not need to be recorded on the

register, and are protected under both Acts whether or not they are registered.


221

The Acts also require anyone who carries out a land-use activity to exercise a duty of

care. Land users must take all reasonable and practicable measures to ensure their

activity does not harm Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage.

The duty of care under Queensland’s Indigenous cultural heritage legislation applies to

any activity where Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage is located. This

includes cultural heritage located on freehold land and regardless of whether or not it

has been identified or recorded in a database.

Consultation with the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander party for an area may be

necessary if there is a high risk that the activity may harm Aboriginal or Torres Strait

Islander cultural heritage.

The cultural heritage duty of care can be met by acting:

in compliance with gazetted cultural heritage duty of care guidelines

under an approved Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) developed

under Part 7 of both Acts

under a native title agreement or another agreement with an Aboriginal or

Torres Strait Islander party that addresses cultural heritage

in compliance with native title protection conditions (for low-impact mineral

exploration)—but only if the conditions address cultural heritage.

Any land user can develop and seek approval for a CHMP under both Acts. A CHMP is

an agreement between a land user (sponsor) and Traditional Owners (endorsed party).

The plan explains how land use activities can be managed to avoid or minimise harm

to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage. A CHMP must be developed

and approved when an environmental impact statement is required for a project.

However, any land user can voluntarily develop and seek to have a CHMP approved,

even when there is no legal requirement to do so.

Indigenous cultural heritage is also recognised in the Queensland State Planning

Policy which explicitly states that places of Indigenous cultural heritage are to be

conserved for the benefit of the community and future generations. This includes the

requirement that the making and/or amending of a planning scheme in Queensland

must consider and integrate matters of Indigenous cultural heritage that support the

requirements of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act and the Torres Strait Islander

Cultural Heritage Act.

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the GBR region, there are a number

of cultural sites that occur within the GBR’s land and sea country. These include sacred

sites, ceremonial sites, burial grounds, rock art sites, middens, fish traps, cultural

landscapes and story places. Today trade networks, beliefs, music, art, creation

stories, traditional lore and customs maintain a living culture.


222

Management agreements

Traditional use of marine resources agreements

Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreements (TUMRA) describe how Traditional

Owner groups work with Australian and Queensland governments to manage

traditional use activities in sea country. A TUMRA may describe, e.g. how Traditional

Owner groups wish to manage their take of natural resources (including protected

species), their role in compliance and their role in monitoring the condition of plants and

animals and human activities, in the GBRMP17.

TUMRAs play an important role in enabling traditional Indigenous use of marine

resources within their sea country. These agreements describe how Traditional Owner

groups manage the natural resources (including protected species) and their role in

compliance and monitoring activities relating to the condition of plants, animals and

human activities within the GBRMP.

A TUMRA is a formal agreement developed by Traditional Owner groups and

accredited by the GBRMPA and the Queensland Government. The agreement

describes how Traditional Owner groups work with the government to manage

traditional use activities in their sea country.

TUMRAs are developed by a steering committee elected by the Traditional Owner

group. The steering committee documents the desired role of their group in managing

their sea country and the role they want the Australian and Queensland Governments

to take. All members of the group must agree with the document before it can be

accredited. For example, a TUMRA may describe how Traditional Owner groups wish

to limit their take of turtle and dugong, their role in monitoring plants and animals, and

their involvement in observing human activities in their sea country. A TUMRA may

also describe ways to educate the public about traditional connections to sea country,

and to educate other members of a Traditional Owner group about managing their sea

country.

By working together to develop and implement a TUMRA, Traditional Owner groups

are able to better achieve their aims for managing their sea country. While the TUMRA

approach recognises and addresses a complex array of Indigenous rights and

interests, it can also address marine management and legislative issues in a culturally

appropriate and scientifically valid manner.

TUMRAs also have the great advantage in that they present an adaptive approach. As

the capacity of the Traditional Owners increases, their responsibilities can grow

accordingly. In addition, it presents a process where relationships with the GBRMPA

and the Queensland Government can be maintained and built upon through time, and

difficulties can be negotiated.

Indigenous Land Use Agreements

An Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) is an agreement between a native title

group and others, including government agencies, about the use and management of

their land and sea country. These agreements are intended to be flexible, practical

17

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/traditional-owners/traditional-use-of-marine-resources-agreements


223

agreements and may be negotiated over areas where native title has, or has not yet,

been determined.

ILUAs might cover:

native title holders agreeing to a future development or future acts

how native title rights coexist with the rights of other people

access to an area

extinguishment of native title by surrender to government

compensation for loss or impairment of native title.

ILUAs can also cover cultural heritage issues, the provision of public works and

infrastructure, and employment and economic opportunities for native title groups. They

also mean that negotiations can be conducted to suit the particular circumstances of

different Traditional Owner groups.

ILUA’s were first introduced after amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998. The

Native Title Act states who must and who may be a party to each type of ILUA. Making

sure that the right people and organisations are party to the ILUA is essential for

registering an ILUA. If the right people are not a party, then the agreement cannot be

registered by the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT).

The NNTT ensures that proponents make sure that reasonable efforts have been made

to identify all potential native title holders for the agreement area, and that those

identified have authorised the making of the agreement. As of 19 February 2014, the

NNTT had 533 ILUAs registered in Queensland18. When an ILUA is registered, it binds

all native title holders and participating parties to the terms of the agreement.

There is currently one ILUA in use within the GBRMP. The agreement between the

Australian Government, via the GBRMPA, and the Kuuku Ya’u People is the first

Marine Park ILUA. The agreement recognises Traditional Owner native title rights and

interests in managing nearly 2 000 kilometres of sea with the GBRMP in an area just

north Lockhart River.

Indigenous Protected Areas

An Indigenous Protected Area (IPA) is an area voluntarily declared as protected by the

traditional custodians of the region. The concept was developed in the late 1990s

through collaboration between the Australian Government and Indigenous landholders.

Indigenous communities managing IPAs achieve conservation and sustainability goals

for country, as well as maintaining their culture19. The Australian Government and, in

some instances, state or territory agencies provide funding and support.

Indigenous communities apply to the Australian Government for support to consult with

their community and other stakeholders on whether an IPA is the right future for their

country. They then apply to the Australian Government for support to consult with their

community and other stakeholders on what an IPA declaration would mean for them.

Indigenous landowners thinking about establishing an IPA on their land can access

18

http://www.nntt.gov.au/INDIGENOUS-LAND-USE-AGREEMENTS/SEARCH-REGISTERED-ILUAS/Pages/Search.aspx

19 http://www.environment.gov.au/Indigenous/ipa/


224

government support for legal advice and other advice on cultural heritage and

conservation aspects of their proposed IPA.

There are 60 declared IPAs covering just over 48 million hectares across Australia20.

Despite this, few marine IPAs have been declared. The first IPA to extend over a

marine area was the Dhimurru IPA in Arnhem Land. Although land-based IPAs may not

continue onto adjacent waters, significant management activities may be carried out in

coastal waters.

There are currently two IPAs located within the GBR coastal zone. The Mandingalbay

Yidinji IPA encompasses a small section of both the Wet Tropics and the GBRWHA in

north Queensland, just east of Cairns across Trinity Inlet. It is made up of a number of

protected areas that were joined up following recognition of native title over the

Mandingalbay Yidinjii country in 2006. The Djunbunji Land and Sea Program through

the Djunbunji Rangers manage this country on behalf of the Mandingalbay Yidinji

people.

The Girringun region IPA is a voluntary declaration by the Djiru, Bandjin, Gulnay,

Girramay, Warrgamay, Warungnu, Gugu Badhun and Nywaigi (with the support of

Jirrbal) Traditional Owners. The country within the Girringun region Indigenous

Protected Area forms part of the Wet Tropics and the GBRWHA.

Management techniques such as dugong and turtle monitoring, removal of ghost nets

and fisheries surveillance may be undertaken in these areas. Like other protected

areas, management tools for IPAs include a range of legislative and non-legislative

management techniques, with the greatest effort directed towards non-legislative tools

such as education, monitoring, research and interpretation, rather than enforcement.

Sea country plans

ILUAs, IPAs and TUMRAs may be just one part of a broader sea country plan. Sea

country planning is the process whereby Traditional Owners and/or other local

Indigenous peoples develop their goals and strategies to manage, conserve and use

their coastal and marine environments and resources. A sea country plan combines the

priorities and aspirations of Traditional Owners with others with an interest in their sea

country, including government. The sea country planning process encourages people

and organisations to work together towards sustainable management of marine

environments21.

Sea country plans can focus on specific areas, rather than being applied universally

along a coastline, to capture the aspirations of specific groups. However, sea country

plans do not have any statutory authority unlike ILUAs, IPAs and TUMRAs. It is often

quick and easy to implement some actions suggested in sea country plans, while other

actions may require more lengthy discussion and development. Following the

preparation of a sea country plan, the establishment of an IPA, TUMRA or ILUA may

form the next step towards a robust sea country framework.

An adaptive and flexible approach to partnerships is required to acknowledge the

different levels of participation and knowledge among Traditional Owner groups in

managing country. The concept of co-management has formed the platform for

20

http://www.environment.gov.au/Indigenous/ipa/ 21

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2008, Pathways to sea country planning: a guide for Indigenous peoples and organisations, Australian Government, Canberra.


225

managing country in the region since the 1990s, and has helped form a number of

ongoing partnerships between Traditional Owners, government authorities and other

stakeholders.

Under these arrangements and through organised partnership projects, a range of

activities are undertaken to promote the conservation of biodiversity and Matters of

National Environmental Significance (MNES) in the GBR. In the GBR coastal zone in

particular, the Queensland Government’s Indigenous Land and Sea Ranger Program

funds the employment of a number of Indigenous land and sea rangers throughout

North Queensland. The program increases Indigenous participation in environmental

management with rangers ensuring the unique ecologies of Queensland’s natural

environment, including the MNES and Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the

GBRWHA, are protected through activities such as:

managing weeds and feral animals

performing fire management actions

collecting data on protected species and habitats

preserving cultural sites and stories

supporting disaster recovery efforts

managing visitor activity and education

helping manage national parks

Ranger activities are tailored to meet local needs and are negotiated between local

communities, landowners, Traditional Owners and government agencies. There is a

strong emphasis on providing appropriate training and support to rangers and their

communities to equip them with the skills and knowledge to look after their local natural

environment. Ranger positions are full-time and are an important employment

opportunity, particularly in remote communities.

The Queensland Government has committed to employing 40 new Indigenous Land

and Sea rangers, bringing the total number of rangers across Queensland to 80 by

2015. The Government also funds a Junior Ranger program which brings traditional

and modern values for looking after country into the school curriculum. Students learn

about managing the natural environment by working directly with Indigenous Land and

Sea Rangers in classroom activities and field experiences.

Another program aimed at promoting traditional owner participation in environmental

management is the Indigenous Sea Country Management Grants Program. The

program is funded by the Australian Government and is administered in Queensland by

DEHP. The program provides Queensland Traditional Owner groups with grants

ranging from $15 000 to $200 000 to support the development of sustainable

management practices in relation to dugong, turtles and other marine resources.

Under Reef 2050, the Australian Government also commits to working with the

Queensland Government and Traditional Owners on a Dugong and Turtle Protection

Plan. The plan will work to protect dugong and turtle populations in Far North

Queensland and the Torres Strait Islands from the threats of poaching, illegal hunting

and marine debris. This follows Traditional Owner groups voluntarily reducing

traditional hunting activities of dugong and turtles in response to extreme weather

events in 2010-11 that caused dramatic increases in dugong and turtles deaths.


226

In addition, the Australian and Queensland governments recently announced joint

funding of $7 million over four years for an initiative to work with traditional owner

communities to help stop environmental damage from feral pigs and protect turtle

populations along the Queensland coast. The GBRWHA is home to three endangered

turtle species and in some areas along the coast up to 90 per cent of turtle nests are

lost to predation by feral pigs22. The program will utilise Traditional Owner knowledge to

identify key turtle nesting sites that will then be considered priority areas for feral pig

control efforts. Feral pigs also cause a large amount of damage to other ecosystems

and wildlife and it is envisaged that the Program will benefit a wide range of animals

and birds in the GBR coastal zone as well.

Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander groups are keen to have their traditional claim to

ownership of marine estates legally recognised. The recognition of sea rights is not

only a matter of identity and compensation for past wrongs, but also an avenue to claim

management responsibility for the protection of important sites and to develop an

economic base from the use of marine and coastal resources23.

Indigenous peoples have expressed strong views on the principles underlying the

management of the environment which arise from differing views of nature and the

place of humans. From an Indigenous perspective, coastal landscapes and seascapes

are part of an integrated cultural domain to which affiliated groups belong, and from

which they get their identity and customary rights to own and exploit other resources.

In all, the Program strongly encourages participation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander people in managing the GBR coastal zone, and recognises the special rights

and interests of Traditional Owners. Their knowledge of biodiversity and the cultural

values of the area are recognised and promoted through legislation and activities to

conserve biodiversity and MNES within the GBR coastal zone.

Providing Traditional Owners with access to their land and sea country to manage their

cultural heritage is critical to ensuring the well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander communities in the region. Facilitating partnership programs to achieve this

also can potentially enhance economic, social and environmental outcomes for

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders within the GBR coastal zone.

In the context of the strategic assessment, ongoing partnerships between Traditional

Owner groups and governments provide an important contribution to the protection of

MNES and OUV of the GBR. Many of the remote areas within the GBR coastal zone

that are adjacent to the GBR are managed by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

communities, including shire councils. Developing processes for ongoing negotiation

and engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, shire councils

and Traditional Owner groups is also important for recognising the cultural heritage

values of the GBR and helping to protect MNES and OUV.

22

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/2/18/feral-pigs-targeted-to-save-endangered-turtles 23

Bergin, A,.1993, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: A Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Research Publication. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.


227

Potential future opportunities

In further recognition of Traditional Owner connection to land and sea country in the

GBR region and adjacent GBR coastal zone, the Queensland Government will work

with the Australian Government to consider and publish guidelines for project

proponents when consulting with Indigenous peoples in relation to cultural heritage and

the management of traditional use activities. The guidelines would work to ensure the

recognition of the role and interests of Indigenous peoples in promoting the

conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources and promote the

cooperative use of Indigenous peoples’ knowledge of biodiversity and Indigenous

heritage.


228

Appendix 5: Fisheries in the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone

Purpose of this paper

The purpose of this paper is to respond to the recommendations of the independent

review of the Queensland Government’s draft strategic assessment reports and to

address feedback received as part of the public consultation conducted on the draft

reports. Both the independent review and submissions received as part of the public

consultation suggested there were some information gaps in the draft reports regarding

fisheries management in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) coastal zone.

Introduction

Fishing is a major activity in the GBR coastal zone. Within the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park (GBRMP), the state has responsibility for the management of fishing and

aquaculture activities. Fisheries in the GBRMP are not managed separately to the

other fisheries in Queensland, however, specific arrangements are developed and

applied as required.

Commercial fishing

Commercial fishing activity in the GBRMP is important to regional and state economies

generating approximately $200 million annually. New commercial fishing licences have

not been issued since the 1980s and anyone wishing to commercially fish must

purchase an existing fishing business. Broadly, permitted commercial fisheries in the

Marine Park are broken into five categories:

trawl (Ocean Otter, River Beam) fishery targeting prawns and scallops

pot (trap) fishery targeting estuarine mud crabs

net fishery targeting estuarine and coastal fish

line fishery targeting coral reef fish

hand collection fishery targeting lobster, sea cucumber, trochus, aquarium fish

and soft and hard corals.

The size of commercial fishing boats able to operate in the GBRMP is generally limited

to less than 20 meters and activities are governed through a combination of rules

including closed areas, seasonal closures, size limits and limits on the size and amount

of fishing apparatus that can be used. In addition quotas have been introduced into

many commercial fisheries. A quota system is now used to help manage otter trawling

and the harvest of fish such as coral trout, tropical rock lobster, trochus, hard corals,

grey mackerel, sea cucumber, shark, red throat emperor, Spanish mackerel and all

other coral reef fish.

Management controls are supported by scientific monitoring that enable fishery

independent sampling of key fish species, allowing estimates of age and size of fish in

particular stocks through time. This can then be used with catch and effort data from

commercial and recreational fishers in scientific stock assessment processes to model

stock abundance and health. The work is also used as the basis for annual stock status


229

assessments which utilises all available information to inform a risk based assessment

process and determine if additional management action is required.

More information can be found at www.daff.qld.gov.au/fisheries/commercial-fisheries

Recreational fishing

Queensland’s fisheries resources are recognised as being important for local

communities and tourism. Recreational fishing is an important pastime for many people

who live adjacent to the GBRMP or who are visiting the region. More than 700 000

people are estimated to fish for recreation in Queensland each year, catching more

than 8 500 tonnes of fin fish, crabs and prawns. Recreational fishing is limited through

restrictions on the amount of fishing apparatus that can be used, the size of fish that

can be kept and the numbers of fish that can be kept. In addition, area and seasonal

closures apply to protect important habitats for juvenile fish or fish that may be

spawning. Compliance of recreational fishers with fisheries regulations is considered

high - over 94 per cent.

More information can be found at www.daff.qld.gov.au/fisheries/recreational

Current condition

Key fish stocks are monitored and assessed annually. Assessments are undertaken in

accordance with stock status methodologies developed with the assistance of other

Australian fisheries jurisdictions. From 2014 fish stocks will be determined in line with

the Australian stock status processes first used in 2013.

These assessments can conclude that stocks are either: sustainably fished, uncertain,

undefined or overfished. Currently only one fish is considered to be overfished in

Queensland, snapper (Pagrus auratus), typically found in more temperate waters to the

south of the GBRMP. Other species found in the GBRMP have been assessed as

uncertain. This is where there are inconsistent or contradictory signals in the

information available that preclude a determination of stock status with any degree of

confidence. In these cases further monitoring is often undertaken and new information

may also be sought in order to improve status determination.

More information can be found at www.daff.qld.gov.au/fisheries/monitoring-our-

fisheries/data-reports/sustainability-reporting

Each commercial fishery is also assessed and accredited by the Australian

Government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(the EPBC Act). This provides an independent assessment process that ensures

fisheries are operating in a sustainable manner and accredits the fisheries for export

markets.

More information can be found at www.daff.qld.gov.au/fisheries/monitoring-our-

fisheries/data-reports/sustainability-reporting/sewpac-conditions-and-

recommendations-progress

Impacts and risks of fishing

Generally, impacts of fishing include the direct take or mortality of fish, which can lead

to overfishing of a particular stock and/or disruption of the food chain, indirect mortality

of non-target species, and physical impacts on marine environments. Changes in the

abundance of fish species at all levels of the food chain can have an influence on food

webs and ecosystem balance.


230

Fishing practices have varying levels of impact - trawling has high levels of by-catch

which can include listed threatened species and can physically impact benthic habitats.

Nets can potentially capture and injure or kill marine mammals and listed threatened

species. Line fishing also produces by-catch and can capture listed species like turtles

and sharks. Anchoring can cause damage to benthic communities and waste from

boats can be an entanglement or ingestion risk for birds, fish and mammals.

Fisheries management reforms since the introduction of the Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld)

have made significant improvements to the status of fish stocks within the GBRMP.

However, in addition to the successes, there remain three areas of ongoing concern:

the capture of species of conservation interest by some commercial fisheries

operating within the GBRMP. These include dugong, dolphins, shark, rays and

sea snakes

the use of commercial fishing nets in the GBRMP and the question “is gill

netting a sustainable practice?”

the effects of extreme weather events (particularly cyclones and floods)

reducing catch rates or ‘fishability’ in large areas and leading to large-scale

movements of significant proportions of fishing fleets in some sectors.

Many of the recent reforms have aimed to address these concerns by capping or

reducing commercial take of certain species or restricting where and how fishing can

occur, but many concerns persist in the community and many believe that more steps

need to be taken.

Aquaculture

In the catchments adjacent to the GBRMP other fisheries activities can also have an

impact. Aquaculture is a strictly controlled activity with discharges monitored and

controlled to prevent nutrients from entering catchments. There remain risks of high

nutrient discharges from extreme weather events which are mitigated through rigorous

design and assessment processes.

Other risks are also evident from invasive and noxious fish. Regulations are in place,

supported by enforcement and education initiatives, to control the types and numbers

of fish that can be released into natural systems.

Impact of other development on fisheries

Fisheries can also be impacted on by other development, such as when road, rail or

water infrastructure creates barriers or reduces connectivity of aquatic environments.

These barriers can impede fish species from moving between marine environments to

upstream, freshwater environments to spawn or mature which can impact population

growth rates.

How the Program protects MNES

Legislation

Fisheries are managed according to the Fisheries Act. The Act was one of the first acts

in the world to adopt the principles of Ecological Sustainable Development (ESD) as an

objective.


231

The Fisheries Act provides for the management of fisheries resources and fisheries

habitats in order to allow the sustainable harvest of fish species while preserving fish

stocks and critical habitats for use by future generations.

The purposes of the Fisheries Act are to be achieved through:

the management and protection of fish habitats

the management of commercial, recreational and Indigenous fishes

the management of aquaculture.

Overall, the Fisheries Act regulates fishing, damage to marine plants and development

in declared fisheries habitat areas in Queensland.

Through its integration with the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SP Act), the Fisheries

Act ensures assessment of land-based activities that have the potential to damage fish

habitat areas and marine plants. This includes developments upstream that may

change waterways or impact on fisheries productivity, such as dams, weirs or other

potential barriers.

The Fisheries Regulation 2008 adds the requisite detail for the mechanisms created by

the Fisheries Act, including size limits, bag limits, closed seasons, closed waters and

protected areas, great restrictions, noxious fish, protected species and protected

sexes.

Mechanisms relevant to MNES

The main mechanisms available under the Fisheries Act to achieve its purposes are:

commercial fishing licences – these are subject to specific controls

fisheries management plans and regulations – such plans may make

declaration regulating specific matters including the taking, purchase, sale,

possession or use of particular fish, and how fish may be regulated. It should be

noted that under management plans, a declaration may be made regulating the

use of fishing apparatus in dugong protection areas

resource allocation authorities for aquaculture activities – when assessing a

development application for a fisheries development approval under the SP Act,

the chief executive must consider the potential impact of the development on

aquaculture activities. There are a variety of conditions on fisheries

development applications relating to aquaculture including conditions relating to

the fisheries resources for which the aquaculture may be carried out, minimising

or preventing the risk of escape or accidental release of fisheries resources and

construction and operation of operation of any aquaculture furniture used in the

aquaculture

fisheries development approvals for in-stream barriers – conditions of approvals

require developments in the first instance to mitigate impacts by providing for

the passage of fish (for example a fish way). This is important for many

Australian fish species that require access to both fresh and saltwater systems

as part of their life cycle

codes of practice for fisheries activities including aquaculture.


232

Buy backs

In addition to management reforms the Queensland Government has taken direct

action to reduce commercial fishing pressure. In 2012 a program, valued at $9 million,

commenced to buy back commercial gill net licences. These netting licences are the

cause of significant concern in the recreational fishing and conservation communities

who believe the take of shark, other animals of conservation interest and important

recreational fish species are too high. The netting buyback has removed 69 netting

licences to date which should lead to improved recreational fishing and conservation

outcomes as well as improved profitability for those commercial fishers who remain in

the fishery.

Compliance and enforcement

Management is supported by education and compliance activities. Compliance

activities include on-water and on-shore activities. For commercial fishers their on-

water activities and catch reporting are monitored, while for recreational fishers their

catch and activity is monitored. Actions for those found in breach can include on the

spot fines, fines imposed by a court, confiscation of fishing gear (e.g. boat) and the

suspension or cancellation of a licence in the case of a commercial fisher.

Penalties apply under the Fisheries Act for:

beginning development without a permit for assessable development prescribed

under the SP Act that is making a material change of use of premises for

aquaculture

making a material change of use of premises for aquaculture without a resource

allocation authority

unlawful release of fisheries resources, or causing fisheries resources to be

released into Queensland waters.

It should be noted that the Fisheries Act does allow for destruction of aquaculture

fisheries resources if they pose a significant threat to other fisheries resources or fish

habitat. A stop order may also be issued by an inspector to stop or delay fisheries

resources from escaping.

It is a defence in a proceeding relating to the taking, using or keeping of fisheries

resources, or using of fish habitats for a person to prove that they are of Aboriginal or

Torres Strait Islander origin who at the time of the action was acting under custom for

the purpose of a personal, domestic or non-commercial communal need of the

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander community concerned.

Future initiatives

The Queensland Government is currently undertaking a wide-ranging review of

fisheries management in Queensland to deliver a better system for the State’s

commercial and recreational fishers. The purpose of the review is to simplify the

current management system and promote a sustainable fisheries resource for all

Queenslanders.


233

The review will examine the entire approach to fisheries management in Queensland.

An independent consultant has been appointed, with guidance from a Ministerial

Advisory Committee, and consultation is occurring with commercial, recreational,

conservation and Traditional Owner groups. The findings of the review are due to be

provided to the Queensland Government by the end of 2014.

Further information can be found at www.daff.qld.gov.au/fisheries/consultations-and-

legislation/reviews-surveys-and-consultations/fisheries-management-review


234

Appendix 6: Mahogany glider update Significance

The mahogany glider, Petaurus gracilis, is one of Australia’s most threatened arboreal

mammals24. This species is listed as ‘endangered’ in Queensland under the Nature

Conservation Act 1992 and is ‘endangered’ nationally under the Environment

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It is ranked as a critical priority

under the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (DEHP)

Back on Track species prioritisation framework25.

Distribution

The species was first discovered in 1886 but was not seen again until its rediscovery in

198926. Despite extensive surveys they have only been found in recent years in a

narrow and highly fragmented band of mixed open forests, mixed woodlands, generally

under 120 metres in elevation and extending 140 kilometres from Toomulla, North of

Townsville to the Hull River (east of Tully), and up to 40 kilometres inland27. The known

distribution is within the Wet Tropics region but outside of the Wet Tropics World

Heritage Area (WHA).

There is estimated to be 1 500 mahogany gliders remaining in the wild with five large

relatively intact habitat areas and three small, isolated and highly fragmented habitat

areas identified in the Recovery Action Plan (see Figure 1). It is estimated that a

minimum of 800 individuals in an area of at least 8 000 hectares is required for the

long-term viability of mahogany gliders.

Habitat requirements

Suitable habitat for mahogany gliders includes open woodland with a lack of invasive

weeds to enable gliding. A relatively complex habitat containing acacia, albizia,

melaleuca, eucalypts and bloodwoods is required to provide a suitable variety of plant

foods to supply a year-round supply of food resources. Food sources include primarily

nectar pollen and sap but also acacia arils, lerps, honeydew and insects. The grass

tree, Xanthorrhoea johnsonnii, is a significant food source28.

24

Parsons, M. and Latch, P. 2007. Recovery Plan for the mahogany glider Petaurus gracilis. Report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

25

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/prioritisation-framework/index.html 26

Jackson, S. M. 1999. Preliminary predictions of the impacts of habitat area and catastrophes on the viability of Mahogany Glider Petaurus gracilis populations. Pacific Cosnervation Biology Vol. 5:56-62. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney

27

https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/threatened-species/endangered/endangered-animals/mahogany_glider.html 28



235

The main canopy and sub-canopy trees are eucalypts, bloodwoods and paperbarks

and less commonly swamp mahogany and turpentine with an open mid-stratum of

smaller trees and shrubs (e.g. wattles, forest siris, golden parrot tree, black she-oak,

and pandanus) and a grassy ground stratum in which grass trees may be present. The

mahogany glider requires a relatively open forest structure for efficient gliding and

tends to avoid dense vegetation such as rainforest.

Mahogany gliders also make occasional use of rainforest habitats that have emergent

species and monotypic stands of Eucalyptus platyphlla, Melaleuca viridiflora or

Melaleuca quinquenervia that are likely to be important on a seasonal basis.29

Key issues

Habitat extent

The mahogany glider’s habitat has been extensively cleared for agriculture, particularly

sugar cane, with only 20 per cent (110 000 hectares) of pre-European clearing habitat

remains30 31. Around four per cent of this habitat is intact and located in protected areas

managed by the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS). The introduction of

vegetation clearing laws in the early 2000s has slowed the clearing of woody

vegetation with no measurable difference between 2006 and 2009. The remaining

habitat areas outside of the protected areas are highly fragmented and subject to many

pressures including altered fire regimes, weed invasion and grazing pressure which

result in the loss of non-woody vegetation that mahogany gliders depend on for food

sources32.

Much of the non-protected habitat is on privately owned or state leasehold lands

managed primarily for agricultural production, principally grazing.

Areas that have been cleared of woody vegetation are not recognised under the State

Planning Policy as habitat for mahogany gliders but some would provide an ecological

link between isolated habitat areas.

Development

Development and the associated infrastructure such as transport and power corridors

can impact on mahogany gliders directly through loss and fragmentation of habitat and

indirectly through the introduction of threats such as altered fire regimes and feral

wildlife. Avoiding development in the five relatively intact habitat areas and the three

smaller habitat areas is a key principle of the legislative program (see Figure 1). Where

development does occur, the impacts are well known and can be mitigated by

appropriate design and management.

Extreme weather events

29

Jackson, S. M. 1999. Preliminary predictions of the impacts of habitat area and catastrophes on the viability of

Mahogany Glider Petaurus gracilis populations. Pacific Cosnervation Biology Vol. 5:56-62. Surrey Beatty and Sons,

Sydney.

30

Kemp, J.E.,Lovatt,R.J.,Bahr , J.C. Kahle, C.P. and Appleman, C.N. 2007 Preclearing vegetation of the coastal lowlands of the Wet Tropics Bioregion, North Quenslandm Cunninhamia 10, 285-329

31

https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/threatened-species/endangered/endangered-animals/mahogany_glider.html 32

Jackson, S. M. 1999. Preliminary predictions of the impacts of habitat area and catastrophes on the viability of Mahogany Glider Petaurus gracilis populations. Pacific Cosnervation Biology Vol. 5:56-62. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Sydney


236

This part of the Wet Tropic coast is frequently subject to extreme weather events. The

area has been directly affected by several large cyclones over the last 10 years which

has caused major habitat impacts. While these weather events are natural, historic loss

and fragmentation of habitat through agricultural development has meant that

remaining habitat areas are less resilient to these events. Additionally, it is predicted

that cyclone events will increase in intensity over time, placing greater pressure on the

remaining extent of remnant habitat.

In response to the severe damage to mahogany glider habitat west of the Bruce

Highway to the north of Mengua Creek (see figure 9: area 5 Cardwell coastal region)

caused by Tropical Cyclone Yasi in February 2011, DEHP responded by installing

supplementary feeding stations and den boxes, and establishing a long-term

monitoring program to research responses to the storm damage with assistance from

James Cook University and World Learning33. While the future of mahogany gliders in

this area is uncertain there are positive signs of recovery with DEHP officers

discovering two pouch young during monitoring of nest boxes just north of Cardwell.

Altered fire regimes

There is evidence of rainforest encroachment of open forests in national parks that are

not subject to regular fires. Once rainforest is established, the emergent non-rainforest

trees die off and the area ceases to be habitat for mahogany gliders. It is estimated that

up to 30 per cent of habitat in national parks is subject to encroachment by rainforests

and will no longer be suitable for mahogany gliders.34

The shift from harvesting sugar cane by fire to green harvesting has also led to a

reduced fire regime in cane growing areas resulting in the thickening of forests and the

loss of understory species.

The presence of weeds will often inhibit the growth of grasses that are necessary to

maintain a regular fire regime. The higher intensity of a fire in an area infested with

weeds may lead to the destruction of understory plants that are vital to the survival of

mahogany gliders. Even in areas managed primarily for conservation purposes, there

has been a widespread sharp decline in mammals across northern Australia that have

been attributed to altered fire regimes and predation by feral animals.35

Transport and linear infrastructure corridors

Mahogany gliders are highly mobile and need continuous vegetation cover to move

around. Major transport routes are a barrier to the movement of mahogany gliders;

however, they have learnt to use power poles, artificial launching poles and natural

emergent trees to cross roads railways and power line easements36. The average glide

is 40 metres with maximum glides of up to 50 metres having been recorded. Road

corridors and cleared easements that are more than 40 metres wide create barriers to

movement of mahogany gliders.

Predation by feral animals, road kills and entanglement on barb wire fences

33

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2014 Mahogany Glider 34


35 Australian Government 2011 Australian SoE Report 2011

36 Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2014 Mahogany Glider; Department of Environment and Heritage 2012 Framework for evaluating aquatic ecosystem connectivity, Queensland Government, Brisbane


237

Mahogany gliders may be killed by cats, by vehicles or entanglement in barb wire

fences. Some mahogany gliders have been killed crossing roads. Landholders are

encouraged to replace the top strand of barb wire on a fence with plain wire to avoid

injury. On average two gliders require rehabilitation each year.37

Mahogany Glider Recovery Action Plan

A Mahogany Glider Recovery Action Plan is currently being reviewed by DEHP and

DOE. The existing plan maps habitat and describes threatening processes. At the time

of writing the Recovery Action Plan, there was no agreed conceptual framework to

consider connectivity and ecological processes. However since that time, the Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, the Australian Department of the Environment and

DEHP have developed conceptual models and frameworks to begin to map ecological

processes which help planners, managers and land holders understand the linkages in

the landscape. A key principle of the framework is that connectivity needs to be linked

to overall management objectives. This will enable a better understanding as to why

areas are important for the long-term viability of a species. This information will enable

more targeted assessments and conditioning. The Mahogany Glider Recovery Action

Plan is expected to be updated by late 2014.

Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2000–2031

The Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009–2031 identifies ‘strategic rehabilitation

areas’, which are critical landscape linkages that are presently cleared or heavily

fragmented. The objective of identifying these areas is to guide where landholders and

stakeholders can direct habitat restoration. Plantings in strategically important

landscape linkages have already been undertaken using trees and shrubs grown

through a nursery program at local primary schools.

37

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2014 Mahogany Glider


238

Figure 5 Mahogany glider habitat


239

Appendix 7: Cassowary update Significance

The southern cassowary, Casuarius casuarius johnsonii (the cassowary), is the largest

vertebrate in Australian rainforests38. The cassowary is listed as ‘endangered’

nationally under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

(Cwlth). Under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992, its wet tropic population

is listed as ‘endangered’, while its Cape York population is listed as ‘vulnerable’ and it

is ranked as a critical priority under the Queensland Department of Environment and

Heritage Protection (DEHP) Back on Track species prioritisation framework39.

Distribution

The cassowary is a large flightless bird that lives in the rainforests, melaleuca swamps

and mangrove forests of far north Queensland. It is an important seed disperser of

rainforest plants, with the capacity to swallow and spread seeds that are too large for

other animals.

Cassowaries are now found in two populations, one in Cape York and another in the

Wet Tropics. On Cape York, they occur in the vine forests of the McIlwraith and Iron

ranges and in the less extensive vine forests north of Shelburne Bay. In the Wet

Tropics they are widely distributed from Cooktown to just north of Townsville. The total

population in the Wet Tropics has been estimated to be 1 500 mature individuals in

2001. The core habitat is in the coastal lowlands between Ingham and Mossman and in

the uplands of the coastal ranges including the southern Atherton Tablelands.

Habitat requirements

Cassowaries require a high diversity of native trees to provide a year-round supply of

fleshy fruits. Cassowaries are usually solitary, and the size of their home ranges

appears to vary between 0.52 square kilometres and 2.35 square kilometres. Although

they are found primarily in rainforest and associated vegetation, the cassowary

requires habitat containing woodlands and swamps to ensure a year round supply of

fleshy fruits.

Primary threats

The Recovery Plan for the Southern Cassowary40 identified a number of threats which

are outlined below:

Habitat loss: Most of the habitat associated with the cassowary occurs within

GBR coastal zone. Of the 372 000 hectares of regional ecosystems are

associated with this species’ habitat, 58 per cent occurs in national parks and

state forests, 40 per cent occurs in non-urban areas protected under the

Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999 and one per cent occurs in urban

areas. In the Wet Tropics, cassowaries are distributed widely from Cooktown to

38

Francis, H. J. Crome and Moore, L.A. 1990. Cassowaries in North-eastern Queensland: Report of a survey and a Review and Assessment of their status and Conservation and Management Needs, CSIRO, Atherton

39 http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/prioritisation-framework/index.html

40 Latch, P. 2007. Recovery Plan for the southern cassowary Casuarius casuarius johnsonii. Report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane


240

Paluma Range. Approximately 89 per cent of their remaining essential habitat lies

within protected tenures in the Wet Tropics.

Habitat fragmentation: Cassowary populations are susceptible to habitat

fragmentation and can be lost from isolated patches that are vulnerable to

clearing surrounding vegetation and the introduction of threats. For example,

cassowaries have gone from most of the protected areas on the Atherton

Tableland41. Cassowary numbers in the Wet Tropics have been greatly reduced

due to clearing of habitat for agriculture and cane production. On the coastal

lowlands, populations have become isolated where there is pressure from urban

expansion, tourism developments and associated transport and infrastructure

corridors.

Habitat loss from vegetation clearing is considered to have caused a loss of more

than 30 per cent of the population in the last three generations (44 years). The

creation of protected areas has preserved much of the remaining cassowary

habitat, however ongoing population decline in isolated patches is still likely due

to other habitat impacts such as road kill, disease, and dog attack and feral

pigs42.

Habitat degradation: The selective clearing of forests can increase the risk of

severe fire which can destroy rainforest communities particularly where they

occur on steep slopes. The presence of weeds in fire disturbed areas may inhibit

the growth of woodland vegetation that is necessary to ensure cassowaries have

a year round food supply of fleshy fruits. Pond Apple, Annona glabra, is a semi-

deciduous woody tree that cassowaries will eat. However, it is a highly invasive

weeds that can displace native vegetation that cassowaries depend on to

maintain a year round food source. The dominance of this one pest species

destroys the ecological processes that support the diversity of species in

ecosystems.

Road and traffic: Road mortality is considered to have a highly significant impact

on the cassowary population. Although mitigation strategies can be employed in

discreet areas, the cumulative effect of multiple highways, roads and railway

tracks is a threat to the long-term viability of cassowary populations. During

2001–05, 76 per cent of cassowary casualties were attributed to road kills.

Dog attacks: Dog attacks are known to have killed cassowaries but the levels of

attacks across the Wet Tropics region is unknown. During 1992–2005, six

cassowaries were reported to be killed at Mission Beach by dogs.

Hand feeding: Hand feeding is considered to be a threat to cassowaries as it

encourages cassowaries to congregate in areas where road traffic and dog attack

threats are highest. Hand feeding cassowaries also desensitises them to

humans, increasing the risk of attacks on humans.

Diseases: The possibility of an avian disease remains a threat to cassowaries

particularly if they become stressed or malnourished due to habitat

fragmentation.

41 Francis, H. J. Crome and Moore, L.A. 1990. Cassowaries in North-eastern Queensland: Report of a survey and a

Review and Assessment of their status and Conservation and Management Needs, CSIRO, Atherton

42 Garnet, S. Szabo, J. and Dutson, G. 2010 The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010 CSIRO Publishing


241

Extreme weather events: This part of the Wet Tropics coast is frequently

subject to extreme weather events. The area has been directly affected by

several large cyclones over the last 10 years which has caused major habitat

impacts. While these weather events are natural, historic loss and fragmentation

of habitat through agricultural development has meant that remaining habitat

areas are less resilient to these events. Additionally, it is predicted that cyclone

events will increase in intensity over time, placing greater pressure on the

remaining extent of remnant habitat.

Development: Development and the associated infrastructure, such as transport

and power corridors, can impact on cassowaries directly through loss and

fragmentation of habitat and indirectly through the introduction of threats such

wild dogs and vehicle strikes. Avoiding development in the relatively intact habitat

areas is critical to enable core cassowary populations to survive. Where

development does occur the impacts are well known and can be mitigated by

appropriate design and management. Where there are residual impacts that

cannot be avoided or mitigated an offset is required.

The Recovery Plan for the southern cassowary is currently being reviewed by DEHP

and the Australian Department of the Environment and is expected to be updated by

late 2014.


242

References (1) Strategic Assessment Agreement between the Commonwealth of Australia and

the State of Queensland 2012

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/e166e5b7-bd7f-4bc5-9807-

ba263e248632/files/s146-gbr-strategic-assessment-qld.pdf

(2) World Heritage Committee decision 2011, Great Barrier Reef (Australia) (N154)

http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/4418/

(3) Great Barrier Reef coastal zone Strategic Assessment - Terms of Reference

http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/report/great-barrier-tor.pdf

(4) Great Barrier Reef Intergovermental Agreement 2009

http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/great-barrier-reef/protecting-

reef/intergovernmental-agreement

(5) Independent Review of the Great Barrier Reef coastal zone Draft Strategic

Assessment Reports

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/great-barrier-reef-coastal-zone-

strategic-assessment-independent-review-report

(6) Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment 1992

http://www.environment.gov.au/node/13008

(7) Reef Facts 2014 - Tourism

http://www.reeffacts.qld.gov.au/tourism/

(8) Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental

Significance 2013

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/significant-impact-guidelines-11-

matters-national-environmental-significance

(9) EPBC Act referral guidelines for the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great

Barrier Reef World Heritage Area 2014

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/epbc-act-referral-guidelines-

outstanding-universal-value-great-barrier-reef-world-heritage

(10) EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy 2012

http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/12630bb4-2c10-4c8e-

815f-2d7862bf87e7/files/offsets-policy.pdf

(11) Neitschmann, B., 1983, Traditional Sea Territories, Resources and Rights in

Torres Strait, In A Sea of Small Boats (ed J. Cordell), Cultural Survival Inc.

Cambridge, Mass.


243

(12) Williams, R., 1996, Who’s listening and Who’s learning? Aboriginal and Torres

Strait Islander knowledge of turtle and dugong in the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park regions, Ecopolitics IX Conference Perspectives on Indigenous Peoples

Management of Environmental Resources: papers and resolutions, Northern

Land Council, Casuarinam,113-117.

(13) Altman, J., Arthur WS., and Bek, H., 1994, ‘Indigenous participation in

commercial fisheries in Torres Strait: a preliminary discussion’, CAEPR

Discussion Paper No. 73. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy.

(14) Madden, R., 1995, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Survey 1994:

Detailed Findings. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.

(15) Altman, J., Arthur WS., and Bek, H., 1994, ‘Indigenous participation in

commercial fisheries in Torres Strait: a preliminary discussion’, CAEPR

Discussion Paper No. 73. Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy.

(16) Asafu-Adjaye, J., 1994, ‘Cape York Land use Strategy: Traditional activities

project report’, Indigenous management of land and sea project and traditional

activities project: Draft report to the Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy, (ed.

J Cordell), Department of Anthropology and Sociology, University of Queensland,

St Lucia.

(17) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority – Traditional Use of Marine Resources

Agreements 2014

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-partners/traditional-owners/traditional-use-of-

marine-resources-agreements

(18) National Native Title Tribunal – Indigenous Land Use Agreements 2014

http://www.nntt.gov.au/INDIGENOUS-LAND-USE-AGREEMENTS/SEARCH-

REGISTERED-ILUAS/Pages/Search.aspx

(19) Department of the Environment – Indigenous Protected Areas 2014

http://www.environment.gov.au/Indigenous/ipa/

(20) Department of the Environment – Indigenous Protected Areas 2014

http://www.environment.gov.au/Indigenous/ipa/

(21) Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2008, Pathways to

sea country planning: a guide for Indigenous peoples and organisations,

Australian Government, Canberra.

(22) Queensland Government Media Release – 18 February 2014

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2014/2/18/feral-pigs-targeted-to-save-

endangered-turtles

(23) Bergin, A. 1993. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander interests in the Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park: A Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Authority. Research Publication. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,

Townsville.

(24) Parsons, M. and Latch, P. 2007. Recovery Plan for the mahogany glider

Petaurus gracilis. Report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage

and the Arts, Canberra. Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.


244

(25) Back on Track species prioritisation framework 2012

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/prioritisation-framework/index.html

(26) Jackson, S. M. 1999. Preliminary predictions of the impacts of habitat area and

catastrophes on the viability of Mahogany Glider Petaurus gracilis populations.

Pacific Conservation Biology Vol. 5:56-62. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney.

(27) Mahogany Glider, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection 2012

https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/threatened-species/endangered/endangered-

animals/mahogany_glider.html







(30) Kemp, J.E., Lovatt, R.J., Bahr, J.C, Kahle, C.P. and Appleman, C.N. 2007

Preclearing vegetation of the coastal lowlands of the Wet Tropics Bioregion,

North Queensland Cunninhamia 10, 285-329.













(35) Australian State of the Environment 2011

http://www.environment.gov.au/science/soe/2011







(38) Francis, H. J. Crome and Moore, L.A. 1990. Cassowaries in North-eastern

Queensland: Report of a survey and a Review and Assessment of their status

and Conservation and Management Needs, CSIRO, Atherton


245

(39) Back on Track species prioritisation framework 2012

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/prioritisation-framework/index.html

(40) Latch, P. 2007. Recovery Plan for the southern cassowary Casuarius casuarius

johnsonii. Report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the

Arts, Canberra. Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

(41) Francis, H. J. Crome and Moore, L.A. 1990. Cassowaries in North-eastern

Queensland: Report of a survey and a Review and Assessment of their status

and Conservation and Management Needs, CSIRO, Atherton

(42) Garnet, S. Szabo, J. and Dutson, G. 2010. The Action Plan for Australian Birds

2010, CSIRO Publishing.

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone strategic assessment Ñ Supplementary Report

1

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

PO Box 15009 City East Queensland 4002 Australia

[email protected] www.dsdip.qld.gov.au

Great Barrier Reef coastal zone strategic assessment Ñ Supplementary Report

1

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning PO Box 15009 City East Queensland 4002 Australia [email protected] www.dsdip.qld.gov.au

Covers.indd 2 7/08/14 5:01 PM

Great Barrier Reef Coastal Zone Strategic Assessment 2014 ... · Great Barrier Reef coastal zone...

Documents

Transcript of Great Barrier Reef Coastal Zone Strategic Assessment 2014 ... · Great Barrier Reef coastal zone...